![]() |
The Human Sexuality Barnstar | |
For all your hard work on the various sexuality articles. Surv1v4l1st ( Talk| Contribs) 14:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC) |
I saw the AE thing and I have to say that three hours seems a bit lenient to me. I think you dodged a bullet there. But you admitted that what you did was wrong so I'm sure you know that. But I am worried about you because I remember when I first met you at Gaza War that you were one of the most neutral, civil and conciliatory editors there. It took me like a week to figure out which side of the fence you were on. That's a lot more than it usually takes. Actually I recall that I had trouble remembering which on was Cptnono and which was Cryptonio. I don't know what happened but I was away from WP over the summer and you seem to have got caught up in all the I/P bullshit and I think your editing is suffering for it. If I thought you were just another one of the I/P jerks it wouldn't really matter. But I remember when you were an exemplary editor here and I think you could be again. Maybe I'm wrong but I get the sense that in real life you're probably a decent guy too. To be honest your recent trajectory reminds me of Cryptonio and I don't want to see you end up like him. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 19:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
To Cptnono in appreciation of your efforts in working with others to build not only good articles, but in helping to make Wikipedia a collegial community. Well done. Malke 2010 ( talk) 20:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC) |
You, an experienced editor, who openly professes racist attitudes, who hypocritically claims "I don't give a shit about Israel or Palestine" when any fool can see from your editing record that much of your non trivial output has been directed at pro Israeli editing, You who openly calls people pricks and tell them to “fuck off” get a three hour editing ban. I, and inexperienced editor get an indefinite (potentially lifetime) ban on editing on Israel Palestine topics for (out of ignorance of the system) breaching procedural rules. What a joke. Prunesqualer ( talk) 23:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
And where do you suggest I start looking at myself? Prunesqualer ( talk) 00:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, again, I must ask you to be more explicit. Which link (please reinsert below). Prunesqualer ( talk) 00:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
PS Where would we be if people like Galileo and Copernicus had followed the
drop the stick and walk away?
Prunesqualer (
talk)
01:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Enjoy your war Prunesqualer ( talk) 03:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Mail. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 04:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
And don't friggen change for friggen anybody!-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 20:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I just thought I ought to inform you that the proposed deletion template you added to the Artistic reactions to the 1981 Irish hunger strike is being continuously removed by an editor who likes to call my fixing his disruption "disruptive". I'd just like to have your input on it please. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 19:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I saw that you have nominated Sigi Schmid for FA review. I've been out of comission around here for a while (and that probably won't change soon unfortunately). Very busy with work and family. Good luck with the FA review. It will be great to have another FA related to Sounders FC.
In related news, I've been thinking of nominating Sounders FC for TFA on March 19 next year. The date coincides with their first match (so extra points for that), and also will be on-or-about the same week as the 2011 season starting so it will be good to schedule it then. What do you think of that plan? -- SkotyWA T C 06:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm cool with non-templated references too. Don't really care either way, but since this line might end up getting copy-pasted around a lot I just wanted it as clean as possible.
I'm not sure what's going to happen either. I thought Shuki reverted Nableezy simply because the line discussed the legality issue. Then Jaakobou was saying that it was because Nableezy didn't use the exact line from the proposal in our discussion. To some extent, Nableezy might have gotten reverted just for being Nableezy; I'm not sure honestly. I know you and I respectfully disagree on this (which is cool, and which the whole project could use more of), but my stance was pretty much the same as LessHeard vanU—that there was some general consensus for the phrase (or the closest thing to consensus in the I-P topic area), but the discussion mostly fell apart before we could fully flesh out where to put it. I suspect there will still be a lot of edit warring over that as well.
Btw, I've been super busy lately, and will continue to be at least midway through next week (though realistically probably much longer), but I've been keeping an eye on the Sigi Schmid article as well. I tend to be a diff reviewer, only checking changes made to an article instead of combing the article itself, and pretty much all the changes editors have made since you nominated it for FA have looked good to me. I think the text is really solid, but wish we had a more recent picture of him in Sounders colors in the lead, or more pictures of him from his playing or earlier coaching days ( [1] [2]). Ah well, I know those are a total pain to come by. Great work on getting it this far! ← George talk 11:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I thought the name rang a bell when I saw him mentioned at WP:AN - I was the original AfD nominator! Bencherlite Talk 11:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, and based on the discussion in this AE thread, you are hereby admonished for personal attacks and ad hominem comments and are prohibited from commenting on or interacting with Nableezy ( talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia. Please see WP:IBAN for the complete scope of the interaction ban. If you believe that Nableezy has violated their ban from interacting with you, you may not react to that alleged violation except by the procedure specified in the AE thread above. T. Canens ( talk) 22:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey, since I usually trust your judgement and you're active on the TPM article, I thought I'd ask for your feedback on this new subsection I just added (either there or at my talkpage). I'm inclined to just ignore the other editor I mentioned, but I do think it's worth noting at the talkpage if not at an admin noticeboard. It appears to be a pattern with that editor removing talkpage sections under false claims. - PrBeacon (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Cptnono, could you have another look at Herostratus's move request? I thought in the previous discussion which you refer to your rationale was that this was and should remain the article on the pornographic practice (a stance with which I agree). But it strikes me as legitimate -- or actually, an improvement -- then to refer to it as "creampie (pornography)" in the title; certainly all the cited sources discuss it in that context. -- JN 466 19:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 09:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Rabbi Pinto I appreciate the commentary. Am frustrated because a few people are bullying info here when the facts are simply inaccurate. I will follow your advice. Would greatly appreciate your review and feedback and commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai ( talk • contribs) 05:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I dont know how to sign and thats a mistake. Anyway are you interested in reviewing the material, have you ? Or just coaching from sidelines ? (and I apologize if not signing the right way).. contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 ( talk) 05:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok so can you add it in that case ? Who says besmirch ? Of course its factual that he owns it - Will you add it and be involved in this process ? All of my edits are supported entirerly by the facts and the articles already included as sources. Babasalichai ( talk) 05:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Please so get involved and post and comment ? I wont and will leave it alone but if others see the post isnt accurate then others will follow. And for the record follow the edit page their reasoning makes no sense at all and they have given in on nothing. Babasalichai ( talk) 05:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
It may take me a day or two to get to it, but I'll have another look and copy-edit anything I think still needs doing. I don't think it's in any danger of immediate archiving, so I wouldn't worry if it's gone quiet. If I haven't done anything in a week, come back and shout at me a bit. The weekend is the most likely time I'll get to it. -- Sarastro1 ( talk) 19:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
For the reasons I stated here, and subject to the warnings and reminders therein, your ban from interacting with Nableezy ( talk · contribs) is lifted, effective immediately. T. Canens ( talk) 22:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
It's about the fan club not the soccer club. Please see the talk page. I am not going to respond here or on my talk page thanks. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 07:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
-- Neo139 ( talk) 08:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC) -- Neo139 ( talk) 14:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Just saw your note. Haven't figured out if it's just that end part that's not finished; if not, could you just include that and then link to the archive page? (Note I screwed something up in the archiving and am even now redoing it from scratch correctly, so don't look at archive page for another 10 minutes. Unless what I thought was screwed up was related to your editing in middle of my archiving. We'll see.) CarolMooreDC ( talk) 03:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with your revert. Let me know if you need help arriving at consensus on this one. -- SkotyWA T C 08:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Kitchen staff? I work at Microsoft. Not sure what you mean.
Reasons why the list is different:
Glad to see the FA review is going well for Sigi Schmid. It will be nice to add another FA to the list. I'm happy you didn't give up on it. You've worked hard on it and passing FA will be a nice payday for your work. I look forward to congratulating you.
2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final is my current project. It's on its way to GA level now (already nominated). Then it's on to PR and then finally FA review. ETA is probably late February at best. -- SkotyWA T C 09:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
for accidentally removing your comment as I added mine. I was heading back to reinsert it when I saw you beat me to it. Sorry. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 21:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I'd like to get your feedback on something -- here or at my talkpage, please. Another editor, User:Doc9871, just accused me of being the main account for User:Dylan_Flaherty at an ANI over the Palin article:
"If I had to pick one editor as a possible Dylan master, it would be PrBeacon (talk · contribs). The wikistalk is impressive[31] ... and I'm not seeing much in the way of edit overlap (I could be wrong). If a CU is run, I'd put my money here." - Doc9871 [4]
My response is directly below his.
[5] I probably made a mistake in mentioning the another editor who just resumed his snarky retorts from a few months ago, elsewhere, and who just replied at ANI too.
I wasn't directly involved in the dispute at the Palin article or at the ANI. But from our discussions at the SPLC & TPM articles, I considered Dylan to be a reasonable minded editor. I wasn't aware of his aruments at Palin. In the ANI, I posted a couple of small points to support his right to defend himself. I don't know how to read that wiki-stalk thing that Doc linked [6], other than noticing that the same list for him & Dylan [7] seems similar -- and it shows nothing more than overlapping interests. If and when a CU is performed, I expect an apology from him but I'm not about to write that at ANI as it sounds as petty as his post does. But his accusations seem too serious to just toss out there. Regards, - PrBeacon (talk) 07:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I uploaded a edited version of the second image for the wikipedia Facial (sexual) page after reading through the discussion. Unfortunately user "Ohnoitsjamie" continued to revert the image back. I have tried contacting Jamie on his talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ohnoitsjamie but I can't find the link to post on his talk page. Any help would be really appreciated. The new edited image can be found here ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Facial.jpg) and was created by the User Seedfeeder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.188.2.174 ( talk) 20:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cptnono, I see you deleted a user's attempt to contextualize and locate Operation Payback within the historic continuum. In this and similar cases, rather than simply deleting, and recommending that the user concerned post their edit to the discussion page, please could you post it there yourself (in case the relevant user were to fall inactive or be otherwise engaged, thus forestalling discussion). I do not know whether in this case some preliminary material might be salvaged and retained on the main page prior to consensus being reached on the discussion page. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 13:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Cptnono has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day... Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I just did some work on List of Seattle Sounders FC seasons to add a nice lead section to it. I've dabbled with this list in the past adding a bunch of the columns that are there now. I'm considering nominating it for featured list, but I'm not sure if it meets the criteria (specifically it may be too short). What do you think? Would it be a quick fail (and therefore a waste of time) or should I go ahead and try? -- SkotyWA T C 23:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
A longterm IP editor says Merry Christmas Cptnono! -
220.101
talk
\Contribs
00:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello Cptnono! There is a mediation cabal case naming you in a dispute - I have volunteered to mediate the problem and I would like to know if you would be accepting of the process. Cheers! Lord Roem ( talk) 15:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey, it's not too late to sign up! Where would you like to represent? J Milburn ( talk) 12:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't recall for sure, but did Grapefruit also threaten to look you up on Google? ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I did not. Never did I threaten to investigate you. Deliciousgrapefruit ( talk) 21:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
PLease quote verbatim the passage where I say this. Deliciousgrapefruit ( talk) 21:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
That wasn't an effort to expose your identity, but your political biases. Deliciousgrapefruit ( talk) 22:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
And I am upset because you've been bullying the page and acting like you run wikipedia or something.Fuck you. FUCK YOU> FUCK YUOU FUUUUUUUUCK YOUOOUOOUUOOUOUOUOUUOOUOU!!!!! STOP PUSHING ME AROUND ASSHOLE> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU ARE A FUCKING BULLLY and you are a biased editor who controls the Beck page. FUCK YOU. Deliciousgrapefruit ( talk) 22:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
YOU F ING WIN. LET THEM F ing BAN ME. WIKIPEDIA IS PATHETIC BECAUSE IT LETS PUNKS LIKE YOU RUN THE SITE. Deliciousgrapefruit ( talk) 22:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
AND STOP DELETING MY POSTS Deliciousgrapefruit ( talk) 22:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Cptnono has not deleted an of your posts. It looks like one of your posts got accidentally deleted here by Gsbus8 who was in an edit conflict with you, but I'm not seeing any other example of one of your posts being deleted. -- AerobicFox ( talk) 00:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Someone has deleted numerous of my posts and topics on the discussion page. Deliciousgrapefruit ( talk) 19:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
They are there my friend. Deliciousgrapefruit ( talk) 00:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, happy new year and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 01:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Seattle Sounders FC Barnstar | |
For your dedicated work (2 separate FA reviews) getting the Sigi Schmid article promoted to FA I am proud to be the one awarding you this Sounders FC Barnstar. Excellent job. SkotyWA T C 02:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC) |
Good news, 2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final has just passed WP:GA review and now has that most excellent green icon in the top right. Keeping the progress going, I opened a peer review for the article in the hopes of getting it prepared for an FA review. If you have some spare cycles, it would be great if you would take a moment and read the article and provide feedback/suggestions on the prose (or anything else). Thanks. -- SkotyWA T C 06:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Gokkun: per WP:CONSENSUS, the general operative rule is, more or less, stare decisis - failing consensus, or other indicator for change such as application of a policy, the existing state is retained. You people use this all the time to sneak in inappropriate material - if nobody notices and objects for a certain time, viola, it gets to stay, absent a consensus to remove. Very nice. But you can't have it both ways. In this particular case, the existing state is for the image not to be in the article. Herostratus ( talk) 14:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, very much, for doing the GA Review for Tory Christman, much appreciated. I think you forgot to list the page at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society? Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 15:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
You wrote in a recent edit summary, "you cannot close an RfC you are involved in. [9] You also ignored several related comments". In fact, WP:RfC says, "If consensus has been reached before then, the RfC nominator(s) can remove the RfC tag...." It appears that consensus was reached. I understand that the far right like to call their opponents "left-wing", but articles must reflect a neutral point of view, not the view of the far right. TFD ( talk) 01:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello Cptnono. See my proposal at WP:AN3#User:Snowded reported by User:Cptnono (Result: ). Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 03:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey! I just wondered why you removed my stuff from the Gazawar article? Your reasons were a bit arbitrary. Although I agree that it doesnt have to be a new subsection, it could be included in the misconduct regarding IDF soldiers. NPz1 ( talk) 10:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey!
You fail to tell me which rules I have broken regarding the Gazawar article. What information did I fail to include from the source, for the sake of arguments, if that is the problem, why didnt you just tell me which part I left out, or why didnt you add it yourself?
Furhtermore, the information I added is important and fit the controversy of acts carried out by the IDF and should therefore be stated in the article since the subcategory deals with the exact thing. While I agree that it doesnt have to be a new sub for this I could include it somewhere else, no problem.
Furthermore, why do you removed Tancredo? I have spoken with Acroterion about this. I then edited the tex, add it again and used the discussion page to let people know of the add and called for critcism and more information about the specific topic.
Furthermore, why do you removed Cassese part?
Again, your reasons are arbitrary. NPz1 ( talk) 11:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey!
You still fail to adress my questions, which rule have I broken regarding these 3 articles? We need to remove all sorts of POV arguments NPz1 ( talk) 12:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey!
Again please work with me.
Hey!
Well you got the burden of proof to present the rules that I have broken. I also used the talk-page for Tancredo, so why didnt you approach me there? NPz1 ( talk) 12:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey!
Yes you have the burden of proof because you are the on accusing and claiming. Also, as stated before, we need to remove all POV related arguments. NPz1 ( talk) 12:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey!
Its very simple, if you accuse someone of a breach etc you got the burden of proof to present the facts, namely the violations of rules, just giving me a link doesnt expose any violations, it rather points out that POV is being used to remove stuff on an arbitrary basis. NPz1 ( talk) 12:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey!
Please work with me. Removal is not based on arbitrary or made up terms like "problematic", it is based on the Wikipedia rules - and those are very clear. The same rules you have failed to present. Like I said, giving me links doesnt expose any violations. NPz1 ( talk) 13:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey!
Someone reverted my edit without reason, as you can see I took use of your guidelines you gave me the other day - namely I have shortened it, removed and put it under an already present category. The person who reverted it must have missed that. Again we must remove all such POV arguments. NPz1 ( talk) 15:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
You have some nerve, mate. I haven't so much as looked at that article since the last time you gave me that ban nonsense, and you're giving me a second warning for vandalising it? You've removed my comment from your talk page, so you are clearly annoyed by my politics, and obviously allowing your bias to interfere with your duties as an administrator at Wikipedia. I won't go so far as to call you corrupt, but perhaps you should stand down from your position if you cannot keep your own feelings in check. This isn't a forum for conservatives to suppress free speech that they don't agree with. I've been editing at Wikipedia for many years now, and although I might not log in any more, I'd appreciate it if you had the stones to talk to me about your problem, rather than give me the standard, anti-vandal bot post that I have received twice. I would really like to hear your argument regarding my vandalism of Wikipedia's articles before you go and ban me. Personally, I don't think you have a foot to stand on, so tell me otherwise. 110.174.91.113 ( talk) 16:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cptnono. If NPz1 violated 1RR, please make a report at WP:ANEW or WP:AE. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 02:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I have posted to the user's talk page and to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring about this. (The user removed my talk page post two minutes after I posted it, which, in view of past history, is not surprising.) I considered an immediate block, but decided against it for a couple of reasons. Please feel free to contact me about any further problems with this editor. After all the warnings and advice that have been given, I will be willing to block if there is any continuation at all. JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to
The Bushranger (
submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by
Hurricanehink (
submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to
Yellow Evan (
submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for
Talk:Hurricane King/GA1,
Miyagawa (
submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for
Dognapping, and
Jarry1250 (
submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (
explanation), claiming for
Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!
A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing my nomination of 2010 Panama City school board shootings. I plan to start working on your suggestions right away, but I was wondering if you could hold the review for a few days while I fix up the article. Let me know if this sounds reasonable. -- Ashershow1 talk• contribs 20:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could finally make some progress on actually improving the article. I'll start digging up some vegan sources and info which we can maybe add to the article. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ 23:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Sry, I didnt realized that the videos were deleted by the user and yes, the I added the other videos. there is more of them that are going to be released that show the police shooting at protesters. I would for you to take a look at the article and tell me what do you think and where can e=we improve. I also would welcome your edits -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 21:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you take a look please ? There's a single user account beobjectiveplease making continual edits which arent balanced. Thanks Babasalichai ( talk) 12:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I didn't understand your revert of the live coverage EL at 2011 Egyptian protests. Can you explain? Ocaasi ( talk) 20:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I have a long list of reasons to include the link; could you add the reasons not to here:
This is what I have so far:
Arguments against the link: link violates NOTNEWS; link won't be current once the live feed is replaced by another video;... [note: I added several more at the the link below]
Ocaasi ( talk) 00:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I posted it here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#External_Link.3F__Al_Jazeera_YouTube_Channel_Live_Feed. Though I disagree with your opinion, and have no problem soliciting other people's feedback for or against, I think your summary of the situation at WP:ELN was an obvious breach of practices for neutrally describing disputes or otherwise merely providing a very short link. The description you left was one-sided and biased. We have WP:CANVASS to guide bringing others into the debate. I think you'll see the Jimbo talk page summary taking another stab at neutrality. If you are going to be a stickler for 3RR or not, I'd appreciate if you kept that other guideline in mind. Ocaasi ( talk) 01:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
3RR note: Your list of relevant edits is all-inclusive, but the EngVar issue really had 'absolutely nothing' to do with it and though they 'can be contentious' were not contentious in this context and it's quite evident from the diff and the edit history that there was just an i.p. who hadn't encountered British spelling before. No need to insinuate otherwise, even tangentially. Ocaasi ( talk) 04:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)... I think it was a little unnecessary, maybe sneaky, to collect other unrelated reverts from the history; you seem to have gone out of your way to make it more of an issue. After the extensive work done at that page by people trying to keep it in good shape from a continual assault of ips, vandalism, non-discussion, etc., it's not to fitting to have a blind selection of those efforts mined for un-related policy purposes. You were just following protocol, but I think you have missed the point and the context along the way if that is how you use efforts to improve constantly changing pieces of a complex article as points to bolster a 3RR case. Ocaasi ( talk) 04:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello Cptnono, thank you for your review of Obsidian (1986 video game)'s GA attempt. I believe I've done what I can with the points brought up in the review, when you have time could you give the GA review an update. Thanks. Someone another 13:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Many edits now taking place would love your paticipation as it was helpful a few months ago and we seem to be making progress. Babasalichai ( talk) 23:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I have reported your recent actions to the WP:ANI. // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi! As you mentioned I should bring up author chats on RSN, I checked the archives, and realised that I have already brought it up there once in 2009. The answer I got was kind of... unclear though. Bramble claw x 23:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you for your hard work in bringing Falafel to Good Article status. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 20:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC) |
Re: [10] I looked around on the Commons for the USOC match pictures you mentioned, but didn't find any. Can you give me a pointer? -- SkotyWA T C 02:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to notify you of my reply in that section. Until minutes ago, I was unaware that you responded to me, as I removed the page from my watchlist weeks before your latest comment. — LOL T/ C 20:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to
The Bushranger (
submissions) (first, with 487 points) and
Hurricanehink (
submissions)(second, with 459), who stormed the first round.
Casliber (
submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen
here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to
Jarry1250 (
submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to
Stone (
submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.
Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.
Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I have written a review at Talk:Operation Titstorm/GA2 and placed your nomination on hold. Racepacket ( talk) 13:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I have been following the AE . Here's what I see with the following links from SD's very recent history: All of these reverts were made within moments of each other, like, yesterday. If they allow SD to continue to rid himself of opposition, then he will be free to cruise around WP without opposition, changing articles en masse like these, with the same edit summary (Not located in Israel) [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] Here are a couple more recent reverts for good measure [20], [21] Will the admins tell us that this is "collaborative editing"? 172.129.98.151 ( talk) 16:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm really new at wikipedia, so I don't know if this is the right way to contact you, but I was wondering what the correct article for the cascadia summit was. -Element1151 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Element1151 ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Yeah, I guess that makes more sense. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Element1151 ( talk • contribs) 02:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Re: [22] Thanks dude, you started my day off great. Regarding the WikiCup, I don't think I'd be a very good competitor. I'm averaging about 2 FAs a year, and my disposible time for Wikipedia is not increasing. It is a fun outlet to build my writing muscles on. I am interested in finishing off the seasons list and giving it a shot at FL review. I'm not confident we'd succeed, but I'm interested in giving it a shot anyway. Last thing... can you believe the season is finally hear!? It has been a long offseason.-- SkotyWA T C 16:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I take critiques of my work by thoughtful editors such as yourself very seriously. Can you elaborate a little and give me specific examples of my writing in this article that you felt were overly emotional or that gave undue weight to a particular POV? If I did do stuff like that, I agree with you that it's not an issue for AE, but I disagree with your idea that it should be tolerated because the topic is emotional. It's precisely with emotional topics that bad editing should be tolerated the least. Needless to say, I agree with your critique of Gatoclass' behavior, but I wouldn't be as nonchalant about it as you seem to be. Anyway, I think that my editing on this article was pretty good by absolute standards (and obviously as compared to that of Gatoclass and his bodyguards), but if you can give me useful criticism, I'll listen carefully. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 13:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey Cptnono!
I'm wondering if the license tag on this is valid or not. Can we add to the article here? -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 09:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, my kind of article: dotted with photos. And good idea! I swapped them, and I think it'll be acceptable this way, as well as looking better. The photo of the canal crossing is a good one. Maybe if we supplement it with a photo of the Israeli crossing, but I don't know where to find that. -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 21:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
You have been active in past on Rabbi Pinto a major feature on him has come out - would appreciate if you can assist at Rabbi Pinto page. http://forward.com/articles/136250/ Babasalichai ( talk) 11:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on March 19, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 19, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 ( talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 19:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Seattle Sounders FC is a Major League Soccer (MLS) team based in Seattle, Washington that plays its home matches at Qwest Field. It was established in November 2007 as an MLS expansion team. The league's 15th team; Sounders FC played the first match of its inaugural season on March 19, 2009. During their first two seasons every home game was sold out, they set a new MLS record for average match attendance, and they sold the most season tickets in the league. Seattle finished both seasons with a winning record and qualified for the MLS playoffs. In 2009 Sounders FC became the second expansion team in MLS history to win the U.S. Open Cup, and in 2010 became the first ever MLS team to repeat as Open Cup champions. Fans selected the Sounders name for the club through an online poll in 2008, making the Seattle Sounders FC the third Seattle soccer team to bear the moniker. ( more...)
I seem to remember you know your way around policies regarding photos. What do you think about this?? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 22:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I've just removed your last comment. It ended with straight abuse directed toward another editor. Please, could you just rephrase it, sticking to the issue (not those you're arguing with) and leave out the swearing. -- Simon Speed ( talk) 09:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Please reply to this: [24] -- Supreme Deliciousness( talk) 10:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Concerning the emails you have received, could you elaborate more in their nature? What of my edits and other users edits have been sent too you? Who are these people that have sent you this? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 11:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is
Hurricanehink (
submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H.
Piotrus (
submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "
vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.
A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCupand the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I think your recent posting has ended up in the wrong section - perhaps you should fix this. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I dont think you noticed that the last image you reverted was from the main square, on Land Day? Palobserver ( talk) 16:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
You have reverted Facial (sex act) twice, a further revert will be edit warring in defiance of WP:3RR and you will be subject to sanctions. You have been warned. Please do not edit war. You need to work this through with the other editor or open a discussion on the talk page. Herostratus ( talk) 05:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
I note that you've been asked plenty of times to stop edit warring, and I see your name come up a lot. Please note: 3RR is not a license to revert three times in a day. And you most definitely understand that: a month ago, you told someone who did exactly the same thing as you (three reverts in one day) "If you do not see what you did as edit warring then you should simply go away. End of story. No excuse. Fuck off my page." [25]. You have not stopped edit warring despite requests, and have avoided blocks only by filibustering requests to you to do so. This block is a request for the future: please stop edit warring. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 20:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Cptnono ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was not edit warring. I was stopping an IP from vandalizing the page. I also did not breach 3/rr. If this is rejected I would be happy to give a more in depth explanation but it really shouldn't be needed.Cptnono (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC). Disregard, here is my reasoning: The following list of recent reverts of the image (not other vandalism related to the image but there was plenty of that too) *[44] revert of an IP removing the image by another user @ 00:46, 22 December 2010*[45] revert of an IP removing the image by another user @ 15:04, 22 December 2010 *[46] Semi protection due to vandalism *[47] another user restoring the image after accidentally removing it while fixing vandalism *[48] revert of an IP removing the image by another user @ 14:37, 27 March 2011 *[49] revert of an IP removing the image by another editor @ 02:03, 2 April 2011 *[50] revert of an IP by me at 23:32, 10 April 2011 *[51] the same @ 23:37, 10 April 2011 *[52] me reverting Herostratus @5:03, 11 April 2011 Previous discussion *Talk:Facial (sex act)/Archive 3# 2 images started by me at 06:19, 19 November 2010 Note: **Support from another established editor **Note support from Herostratus who said "... I'm also not a big fan of anon editors jumping in with edits on controversial issues. For a contentious issues such as this, edit summaries are not enough - the editor should engage on the talk page if he thinks the image shouldn't be included." Also note that I did not say I was reverting based on no consensus but based on not allowing an edit from a malicious IP, lack of talk page use, and BRD. My name comes up alot for incivility not edit warring. MtO blocked for the wrong reason. Lucky for me, I was not uncivil in this case. And no, I do not often edit war which is clear in my block log. HS was gaming the system by going to his page after I was stopping a vandal and MtO fell for it since he doesn't like seeing me talking smack so much. He made it clear in his block reason. That being said, I do understand that NOTTHEM is not an argument. But I think I covered the rest of it with the diffs above. And did I make any reverts after? No I went to bed so there is no preventative measures here but purely punitive (even though I was stopping a vandal who refused to use the talk page). And note the user just above who supported my reverts.
Accept reason:
While I don't normally revert a 12 hour long block... in this case there was no reason for that block to be in Cptnono's block log. There was no violation of 3RR, and there was certainly no warning by an uninvolved user. Whether Cptnono thought someone else should be blocked for reverting 3 times is irrelevant, two wrongs don't make a right. There is no clear reason for me to believe Cptnono should have been blocked, at the most Magog the Ogre should have protected the article and allowed the discussion take place on the talk page. This being said Cptnono should not further continue to revert any changes on the article until the dispute is resolved, and should try to remain calm and civil as this discussion unfolds. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Even you can unblock if you realize you were wrong MtO. If you do not realize you were wrong then so be it. But I am taking this to ANI before or after since Herostratus is gaming the system again. And please back up your accusation that I edit war and filibuster to get out of it. I am uncivil but that was not the block reason and not applicable to this instance. Cptnono ( talk) 02:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
There's a move request discussion going on at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority#Requested move, with which you were previously involved. I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new discussion. Nightw 08:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
First, it wasn't initially clear to me what that message on my talk page was talking about. The warning that you 'dittoed' was for vandalism that I didn't commit (the person who did it had cracked the key to my wireless network, which was weak, and I had to change it). Second, as far as the alleged 'discussion on the talk page' is concerned, I see no such thing [26]. What are you talking about? If it is in the archives, it is not an ongoing discussion, and that comment about tags by Supreme Deliciousness did not even receive one response. Tourism in the West Bank belongs in the Tourism in the Palestinian territories article. Who is arguing whether or not the West Bank is part of Israel? Most maps don't show it as part of Israel, either. 96.26.213.146 ( talk) 04:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
How many Palestinians have you met? Just curious. - asad ( talk) 13:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Enh, Dan Savage is still not a good source for questions of fact, unless he's stepped up his game recently. He's still mainly an activist, and activists, whether on the left or right or wherever, are suspect. To the extent that he's not activist, he's not scholar or regular journalist. Being on the youtubes or whatever doesn't much affect that.
What is this about ANI? No one is going to ANI. I'm not sure what you are talking about, sorry. Herostratus ( talk) 03:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the link Cptnono. I had been asking Ameer for more practical advice, as in what's missing from the article and what needs to altered/added before a review. It's just that it's my first attempt at an A-Class review. If you can offer any help on that, I'd appreciate it a lot. Cheers! -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 08:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Cptnono, for the good news and the kind words. I don't know who the person was who originally nominated this article for GA status (or why) but when the first reviewer failed it, I felt somehow personally slighted (I thought I had done a good job), so I made what I thought was a major effort to improve it, and then renominated it. It was humbling to have you (as the second reviewer) point out all the many things that were still wrong with it! However, you were sufficiently supportive to keep me from giving up entirely and your always helpful suggestions showed me that improvements were still possible. Thanks for hanging in. This GA status is as much your work as mine. Wardsislander ( talk) 13:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Round 2 of the
2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round.
Casliber (
submissions), who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.
This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to
Hurricanehink (
submissions) and
Nergaal (
submissions) who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored;
featured sounds,
featured portals and
featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to
Candlewicke (
submissions) (who has been eliminated) for his work on
In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!
Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at Imzadi1979's talk page.
Imzadi 1979
→
22:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I wanted you to know that I added your name to the GA nom. I wanted to make sure you got credit for your work on this article (earlier, and more recently). Hopefully this counts for the WikiCup. Thanks for your work on this article. -- SkotyWA T C 18:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Apologies for going missing in action after nominating this article for GA. We're trying to sell our home right now and it's getting pretty hectic. Hopefully I'll be able to put more time into the article this weekend or next. Thanks again for your help with this nomination. I expect someone will start reviewing it this week or next. -- SkotyWA T C 15:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I have asked, more than once, several questions of you at the talk page of falafel. Could you please answer those questions? Thank you, nableezy - 21:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
We're half way through round 3 of the
2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round.
Casliber (
submissions), of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by
Racepacket (
submissions),
Hurricanehink (
submissions) and
Canada Hky (
submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at
featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.
A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you I'm happy to help. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, could you be more specific about what article or incident you refer to? If I "ignored IP vandalism", the article in question may just not be on my watchlist or something, maybe? Herostratus ( talk) 14:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
You said you thought AgadaUrbanit was "actively discussing a perennial request without being a jerk". I asked whether you honestly thought AgadaUrbanit wasn't being a jerk in that discussion. I didn't call AgadaUrbanit a jerk.
I will remove my comment about manure. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 05:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
WP:AE#Cptnono nableezy - 19:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Further to this request for enforcement, this message is to inform you that, for 6 months (until 27 December 2011), you are prohibited, under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, from interacting with Nableezy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in accordance with the standard interaction ban detailed at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Interaction ban. You may not:
In accordance with this restriction, you also may not submit a request for arbitration enforcement that concerns Nableezy. If you violate this restriction, your account may be blocked from editing by any administrator. If any aspect of this restriction is unclear, please feel free to contact me. AGK [ • 22:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Howdy. In an effor to be civil, I wanted to reply to your accusation that my removal of your tags was 'sneaky'. It wasn't. I waited a few days to see if there would be a flood of activity to honor them, but there wasn't any. I happen to disagree with you that the tags are necessary. However, I do agree with you that there is an oversaturation of 'genre' junk in the lede that can be removed, and I pledge to do it - just give me a few days. On the neutrality issue, I do completely disagree and suggest you haul in an admin if you think it has merit. The regular writers have done their best to use bona fide secondary sources, and to claim it reads like a fanboy page is rather condescending. Best, A Sniper ( talk) 17:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was
Casliber (
submissions) who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by
Wizardman (
submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by
Eisfbnore (
submissions), who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by
Hurricanehink (
submissions), who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.
No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.
We would again like to thank
Jarry1250 (
submissions) and
Stone (
submissions) for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.
Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Independence Award | |
Hope fireworks are legal in the state of Washington | ||
Sincerely, AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC) |
YES! That makes me even hungrier for bacon. They aren't legal but that doesn't stop us. VICTORY! Hope your day is going great.
According to this source
[27], War Dept. gave notice of changes needed on June 1, 1909 for NP RR bridge over west Duwamish Waterway. Earlier than 1912 if this is your bridge. (I guess this
[28] is the Eng. book you found. Interesting design!) Will return if I find something better. (Found nothing at historylink.org)
Twang (
talk)
19:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
[back] Toughie! no date found. Bridge span 160 ft. Two 25 HP DC motors.
[29] Flickr photos
[30]. May have been first Strauss heel-trunion bridge. Abandoned.
[31]
[32]
Twang (
talk)
21:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Interesting search. On the 1909 thing: a couple of places said that NP's first bridge was a trestle; didn't see any other mention of its location, so War Dept. might have meant it. Other thoughts: there were lots of engineering mags by that time, so the 1912 articles might have covered it soon after it was built. Note Strauss applied for a 2nd patent in 1908 that took a couple of years (and took the city to court over using one without a license). Amazing that with all the rail-buff sites noone seems to have a date. Good luck!
Twang (
talk)
04:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't being malicious. I restored captions that make as much sense as the one you restored. As I wrote in my edit summary on June 16 -- describing her as "unsmiling" is such a "duh!" caption that one might as well describe her as "brown-haired". See the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 06:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I think I just figured something out: You think I showed up at that article to stir trouble because of our differences at Israel- and Palestine-related articles, don't you? My first edit at Facial was in November 2007, before you were a registered editor. While I sometimes check other editors' contribution histories in accordance with policy, I would never hound somebody just to annoy them.
In any event, I'm very sorry that I've caused you so much upset. It's clear that the word "unsmiling" is very significant to you, although I can't understand why. I won't change the caption again, although I may start a new discussion in the coming weeks to see if consensus has changed since December.
Good night. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 07:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
On a previous occasion, whilst I was serving a 3 week ban on editing the "Gaza War" article, I made several suggestions on the talk page which where accepted by yourself and other editors. However on that occasion nobody else actually made the edits they had agreed with. On that occasion, out of frustration and ignorance about how Wiki bans worked, I made the edits myself and consequently received an indefinite ban (which, you may recall, I am still serving) on editing articles broadly related to the Arab/Israel conflict. I have no intention of committing the same error a second time, and am consequently unable to act on your suggestion to "copy edit" or "Paist" material into the article. Prehaps, since you appear to agree with my proposals, you would be good enough to consider making these edits yourself? Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I let him off the hook too quickly yesterday. What do you think? Calling another editor an ass is something I wouldn't dream of being able to get away with, and I literally shudder to think what would happen if you ever called an editor in I/P an ass. But the sad part is that it only confirmed the problem that I initially started that discussion to address with him one-on-one (before his team of defense attorneys showed up). Tell me if you feel there's a case to be made and if you'd be on-board with it or if you think it'll be a vain effort at this stage, based on your experience.— Biosketch ( talk) 02:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I can't find any sources for the USOC stats in this article. I thought I would find them in the media guide, but no such luck. I can't figure out how to remove the USOC and CCL from the stats table, but it appears that's all that needs to be done to pass the article. Can you help? -- SkotyWA T C 07:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Cptnono, I hope you are fine, and I will still see you around. In any case good luck to you in everything you are up to. It was great to know you! Best wishes.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 19:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
All Around Amazing Barnstar | |
Thank you for your help getting Steve Zakuani through WP:GA review. You stepped in when I had no time and saw it through. For that I recognize you as an all-around amazing Wikipedian and award you this barnstar. Thank you. SkotyWA T C 05:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC) |
I hope you won't be completely out of commission in your semi-retirement. The SSFC task force wouldn't be the same without you. I admit I've been a lot less active lately due to more work, moving homes, and some other family stuff. I'm hoping to ramp back up in the next few months, especially if I have another cup final article to work on (Go Sounders!). Take care and I hope all is well for you in real life. -- SkotyWA T C 05:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Congratulations! |
Thanks for all the work you did in making
Steve Zakuani a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated.
In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) |
|
Thank you for your support |
Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian ( talk) 07:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are
Adabow (
submissions) (Pool A, 189 points) and
PresN (
submissions) (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on
Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (
White-bellied Sea Eagle, from
Casliber (
submissions)) and two featured lists (
Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and
Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from
Another Believer (
submissions)). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!
There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 11:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 17:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cptnono. I was wondering if you could lend your opinion here [33] on reliable sources for Celtic F.C. supporters if you have time as you've lent a hand on a similar subject before. Thanks Mattun0211 ( talk) 02:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Cheers - despite everything you managed a neutral input ;) Mattun0211 ( talk) 09:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The idea of parallel states ("in which Jews and Arabs would owe their allegiance to separate parliaments but share a single territory and army") is interesting, but I think it would be an administrative nightmare. If I read this correctly, the suggested breakdown is based on religion and ethnicity, not geographic location. So an Arab living in Tel Aviv would be governed by an Arab parliament (and Arab laws), while the Jewish next-door-neighbor would be governed by a Jewish parliament (and Jewish laws)? What would happen if their laws differed, or contradicted each other? Who determines land ownership rules and building rights? Which parliament would command the military? I suspect that the parallel states solution would have similar "separate is not equal" problems as segregation had in the United States. Imagine if the result of the civil rights movement in the United States hadn't been integration, but instead further segregation resulting in two governments - one for blacks, and one for whites - with a shared military and territory for both. I think it would have been highly unlikely that both governments would be equal, and you would have similar administrative headaches.
I'm still somewhat torn over whether the best solution is a one-state solution or a two-state solution, but I also doubt that either side has the willpower or the motivation to come to an agreement anytime soon. Israel has very little short term incentive to come to any sort of deal on the issue, and lacks long term vision. The Palestinians have very little short term bargaining power, and can only bootstrap themselves so far. My feelings at the moment are that it would actually be best for the United States to not veto the Palestinian UN bid of statehood in September, as a way to just sort of throw the kids into the pool so that they learn to swim together, but I don't think the United States has the political willpower to make a move that bold. ← George talk 19:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:
We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists,
Another Believer (
submissions),
Piotrus (
submissions),
Grandiose (
submissions),
Stone (
submissions),
Eisfbnore (
submissions),
Canada Hky (
submissions) and
MuZemike (
submissions). Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.
In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate Ucucha ( talk · contribs). The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.
A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't care what your issue is with User:Cerejota but please refrain from making personal attacks as you did at User talk:Cerejota#Richard Dawkins. Comment on the content, not the contributor. -- Mrmatiko ( talk) 10:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey, just saw your edit of 2011 USOC final. Haven't crossed paths with you much. If you'll be online over the next couple of days, I was wondering if you'd mind reviewing this and make any changes/tweaks you think should be made. I plan to nominate it at WP:TFAR the next time the TFA directors schedule a swath of articles (probably early next week). I'm waiting because it's kind of a longshot with only one point (and a weak one at that), but I figure it's worth a try. -- SkotyWA T C 02:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Great news! It's been scheduled] to appear on the main page on October 4th. Thank you for your supporting vote. Since there is no archive for WP:TFAR I archive WP:SSFC related articles here. -- SkotyWA T C 16:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your support at my latest AE. Too bad it didn't work out as I hoped. Wikifan Be nice 10:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
'The page was locked due to edit warring. If you revert again you will be edit warring and someone like me will be seeking your block. Instead, follow the dispute resolution process. I recommend that an admin gives you a heads up on the additional scrutiny editors are under in this topic area based on a history of disruptive editing. I feel that I cannot give you the proper advice since you choose to not listen and I do not have the patience do deal with you'. I believe this is from you. I don't see any reference, so have no way to know what page you are referring to, but if it is Itamar attack, than simply reading what I have written would already tell you what I intend to do. I recommend that you check before you give advice, and make it clear what you are writing about. I do not have the patience to deal with you otherwise. Dalai lama ding dong ( talk) 18:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Again it seems you cannot bother to tell me what you are writing about. My name does not appear on the page you gave a link to, and so you are wasting my time with issues that do not apply to me. Why are you doing this? Dalai lama ding dong ( talk) 18:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for chiming in in the brief time they left my complaint up at AN/I. Yes, you are correct...Admins should never use admin tools against anyone they have had a content dispute with. Best wishes.-- MONGO 04:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
to a discussion at Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society/Archives/01/2012#Sealers, removed material if you're interested. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 13:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.
|
---|
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.) The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere. A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits. The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments. The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals:
The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space. We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus. New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern. Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page. |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC).
Your request for clarification has been closed. For the definition of "broadly construed", please refer to the arbitrators' comments. For the Arbitration Committee -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 17:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Falafel, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK [
•
21:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by
Miyagawa (
submissions),
Hurricanehink (
submissions) and
Sp33dyphil (
submissions), all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (
1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and
Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's
1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the
scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.
If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 12:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, why you removed the book section from Death article, it has reliable sources, supported by the Chuck himself and probabely the only book written about him when he was alive, please do not remove it again. Spada II ♪♫ ( talk) 19:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I have provided some page view stats regarding your comments about what readers are most likely to be looking for on Talk:Seattle Sounders#Re-requested move. Cheers, Number 5 7 08:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
[34] A bit harsh, no? Clicked the wrong button?-- Terrillja talk 15:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Cookies! | |
Walter Görlitz has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}! |
![]() New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Cptnono/Archive 6! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is
Hurricanehink (
submissions), who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners:
Dreamafter (2007),
jj137 (2008),
Durova (2009) and
Sturmvogel_66 (2010). The final standings were as follows:
Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.
No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.
Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
It was good to have you on board this time around- we hope you enjoyed the competition! In case you are interested, signups for next year are open. Thanks, J Milburn and The ed17 20:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Awww, that's disappointing but I understand your reasoning, especially about the copyvio stuff. I wasn't too sure myself about the reliability of YT in this case, obviously, but I hated seeing all those names with "citation needed" after every single one. It bothered me, I'm not sure why. I probably should have done in the first place what you eventually did. Thanks for letting me know you were taking them out.
p.s. what are your thoughts on removing that first paragraph in the "Popularity and Imitators" section? I asked on the Walken talkpage but so far have no takers. -- Ella Plantagenet ( talk) 22:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Read it before being a dickhead. - Nathan Johnson ( talk) 17:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I reverted your vandalism to User:William M. Connolley that you did in this edit. Don't do that again. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 04:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Ditto re this edit to the same user's talk page. ScottyBerg ( talk) 15:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Pacific Falafel |
Thank you for going the extra mile to improve this project, even if it means saying "fuck it" ;) AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 06:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC) |
With regards to the Bradden Inman deletion, I should mention that I use the Twinkle add-on to nominate pages for deletion and it's the one that notifies users about deletion discussions. However, in this particular case, I don't think it worked properly since this is the second message I receive with regards to that particular deletion about failing to follow procedure. I apologize for that, I guess I should manually checked to see if it did everything it was supposed to. I've just never had any problems with it in the past so I didn't really think of doing that. Anyways, hopefully there's no hard feelings, I definitely wasn't looking to keep you or any other editor out of the loop. Take care. TonyStarks ( talk) 10:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
You know that you deserve it:) Shrike ( talk) 08:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC) |
mmmmm I quote, "You are welcome to provide sources and edit the article. That is the point of Wikipedia and no one would object. Fuck your face palm, though. See: Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Then feel like a pretentious jerk for facepalming something you could have fixed yourself if you were not so lazy. Cptnono (talk) 07:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)"
Most original contributors prefer to edit their own material after a critique; this is why I did not edit your contribution. As for your language and good humour, I shall pass. 85.78.91.138 ( talk) 07:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Nazi chicks were also hot. Just because they are hot does not mean they aren't evil anti-Semitic subhumans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecleverscreenname ( talk • contribs) 09:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Why did 4chan have it out for you? Your protection logs were 6 long lines of my history so how could I not get curious? Alatari ( talk) 02:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
4chan is anti-Palestine? I got the impression they were anarchists and freedom supporters so now I'm confused. That was an excellent photo you had up; when and where was it taken? Alatari ( talk) 05:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Georgetown Brewing Company requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mt king (edits) 04:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The recent AE thread concerning yourself and Nableezy has been closed. This is not a formal enforcement action, but the consensus was that you should be advised to take greater care to avoid Nableezy in accordance with your interaction ban—in particular, please take care, where practical, to avoid articles where he is active and take particular care not to get into edit wars in which he has been involved. Again, this is not an enforcement action, but you should consider yourself so advised as of this message. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I note your opposition to my proposed process at Wikipedia:Binding RFCs. Are you able to link me to the RFC that you mentioned so I can look over it? I note that my idea would work vastly different to a conventional RFC and be closed by more than one editor, so a consensus among them would be required (that the consensus of the RFC is indeed X or Y) which I feel may address some of your concerns, but I would like to see your example so I can address it. Regards, Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 07:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
WP:AE#Cptnono nableezy - 14:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your response: Nableezy made a response to me and I answered.
I looked at the edit history there and I don't see that he directed anything at your or mentioned you. Could you point it out? -- WGFinley ( talk) 05:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reason why you failed to sign the comment made on the talk page of Arab citizens of Israel?-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 17:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Might as well.
Happy holidays everyone. I won't bother posting something about my family or work or what the shit else since Wikipedia is not Facebook. But I will remind you all to tip your bartender and cabbie extra on nights like tonight (even if their religion makes them boring). Merry Christmas and have a fun and safe New Year's. Cptnono ( talk) 10:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Human Sexuality Barnstar | |
For all your hard work on the various sexuality articles. Surv1v4l1st ( Talk| Contribs) 14:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC) |
I saw the AE thing and I have to say that three hours seems a bit lenient to me. I think you dodged a bullet there. But you admitted that what you did was wrong so I'm sure you know that. But I am worried about you because I remember when I first met you at Gaza War that you were one of the most neutral, civil and conciliatory editors there. It took me like a week to figure out which side of the fence you were on. That's a lot more than it usually takes. Actually I recall that I had trouble remembering which on was Cptnono and which was Cryptonio. I don't know what happened but I was away from WP over the summer and you seem to have got caught up in all the I/P bullshit and I think your editing is suffering for it. If I thought you were just another one of the I/P jerks it wouldn't really matter. But I remember when you were an exemplary editor here and I think you could be again. Maybe I'm wrong but I get the sense that in real life you're probably a decent guy too. To be honest your recent trajectory reminds me of Cryptonio and I don't want to see you end up like him. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 19:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
To Cptnono in appreciation of your efforts in working with others to build not only good articles, but in helping to make Wikipedia a collegial community. Well done. Malke 2010 ( talk) 20:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC) |
You, an experienced editor, who openly professes racist attitudes, who hypocritically claims "I don't give a shit about Israel or Palestine" when any fool can see from your editing record that much of your non trivial output has been directed at pro Israeli editing, You who openly calls people pricks and tell them to “fuck off” get a three hour editing ban. I, and inexperienced editor get an indefinite (potentially lifetime) ban on editing on Israel Palestine topics for (out of ignorance of the system) breaching procedural rules. What a joke. Prunesqualer ( talk) 23:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
And where do you suggest I start looking at myself? Prunesqualer ( talk) 00:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, again, I must ask you to be more explicit. Which link (please reinsert below). Prunesqualer ( talk) 00:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
PS Where would we be if people like Galileo and Copernicus had followed the
drop the stick and walk away?
Prunesqualer (
talk)
01:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Enjoy your war Prunesqualer ( talk) 03:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Mail. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 04:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
And don't friggen change for friggen anybody!-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 20:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I just thought I ought to inform you that the proposed deletion template you added to the Artistic reactions to the 1981 Irish hunger strike is being continuously removed by an editor who likes to call my fixing his disruption "disruptive". I'd just like to have your input on it please. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 19:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I saw that you have nominated Sigi Schmid for FA review. I've been out of comission around here for a while (and that probably won't change soon unfortunately). Very busy with work and family. Good luck with the FA review. It will be great to have another FA related to Sounders FC.
In related news, I've been thinking of nominating Sounders FC for TFA on March 19 next year. The date coincides with their first match (so extra points for that), and also will be on-or-about the same week as the 2011 season starting so it will be good to schedule it then. What do you think of that plan? -- SkotyWA T C 06:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm cool with non-templated references too. Don't really care either way, but since this line might end up getting copy-pasted around a lot I just wanted it as clean as possible.
I'm not sure what's going to happen either. I thought Shuki reverted Nableezy simply because the line discussed the legality issue. Then Jaakobou was saying that it was because Nableezy didn't use the exact line from the proposal in our discussion. To some extent, Nableezy might have gotten reverted just for being Nableezy; I'm not sure honestly. I know you and I respectfully disagree on this (which is cool, and which the whole project could use more of), but my stance was pretty much the same as LessHeard vanU—that there was some general consensus for the phrase (or the closest thing to consensus in the I-P topic area), but the discussion mostly fell apart before we could fully flesh out where to put it. I suspect there will still be a lot of edit warring over that as well.
Btw, I've been super busy lately, and will continue to be at least midway through next week (though realistically probably much longer), but I've been keeping an eye on the Sigi Schmid article as well. I tend to be a diff reviewer, only checking changes made to an article instead of combing the article itself, and pretty much all the changes editors have made since you nominated it for FA have looked good to me. I think the text is really solid, but wish we had a more recent picture of him in Sounders colors in the lead, or more pictures of him from his playing or earlier coaching days ( [1] [2]). Ah well, I know those are a total pain to come by. Great work on getting it this far! ← George talk 11:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I thought the name rang a bell when I saw him mentioned at WP:AN - I was the original AfD nominator! Bencherlite Talk 11:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, and based on the discussion in this AE thread, you are hereby admonished for personal attacks and ad hominem comments and are prohibited from commenting on or interacting with Nableezy ( talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia. Please see WP:IBAN for the complete scope of the interaction ban. If you believe that Nableezy has violated their ban from interacting with you, you may not react to that alleged violation except by the procedure specified in the AE thread above. T. Canens ( talk) 22:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey, since I usually trust your judgement and you're active on the TPM article, I thought I'd ask for your feedback on this new subsection I just added (either there or at my talkpage). I'm inclined to just ignore the other editor I mentioned, but I do think it's worth noting at the talkpage if not at an admin noticeboard. It appears to be a pattern with that editor removing talkpage sections under false claims. - PrBeacon (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Cptnono, could you have another look at Herostratus's move request? I thought in the previous discussion which you refer to your rationale was that this was and should remain the article on the pornographic practice (a stance with which I agree). But it strikes me as legitimate -- or actually, an improvement -- then to refer to it as "creampie (pornography)" in the title; certainly all the cited sources discuss it in that context. -- JN 466 19:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 09:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Rabbi Pinto I appreciate the commentary. Am frustrated because a few people are bullying info here when the facts are simply inaccurate. I will follow your advice. Would greatly appreciate your review and feedback and commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai ( talk • contribs) 05:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I dont know how to sign and thats a mistake. Anyway are you interested in reviewing the material, have you ? Or just coaching from sidelines ? (and I apologize if not signing the right way).. contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 ( talk) 05:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok so can you add it in that case ? Who says besmirch ? Of course its factual that he owns it - Will you add it and be involved in this process ? All of my edits are supported entirerly by the facts and the articles already included as sources. Babasalichai ( talk) 05:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Please so get involved and post and comment ? I wont and will leave it alone but if others see the post isnt accurate then others will follow. And for the record follow the edit page their reasoning makes no sense at all and they have given in on nothing. Babasalichai ( talk) 05:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
It may take me a day or two to get to it, but I'll have another look and copy-edit anything I think still needs doing. I don't think it's in any danger of immediate archiving, so I wouldn't worry if it's gone quiet. If I haven't done anything in a week, come back and shout at me a bit. The weekend is the most likely time I'll get to it. -- Sarastro1 ( talk) 19:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
For the reasons I stated here, and subject to the warnings and reminders therein, your ban from interacting with Nableezy ( talk · contribs) is lifted, effective immediately. T. Canens ( talk) 22:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
It's about the fan club not the soccer club. Please see the talk page. I am not going to respond here or on my talk page thanks. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 07:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
-- Neo139 ( talk) 08:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC) -- Neo139 ( talk) 14:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Just saw your note. Haven't figured out if it's just that end part that's not finished; if not, could you just include that and then link to the archive page? (Note I screwed something up in the archiving and am even now redoing it from scratch correctly, so don't look at archive page for another 10 minutes. Unless what I thought was screwed up was related to your editing in middle of my archiving. We'll see.) CarolMooreDC ( talk) 03:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with your revert. Let me know if you need help arriving at consensus on this one. -- SkotyWA T C 08:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Kitchen staff? I work at Microsoft. Not sure what you mean.
Reasons why the list is different:
Glad to see the FA review is going well for Sigi Schmid. It will be nice to add another FA to the list. I'm happy you didn't give up on it. You've worked hard on it and passing FA will be a nice payday for your work. I look forward to congratulating you.
2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final is my current project. It's on its way to GA level now (already nominated). Then it's on to PR and then finally FA review. ETA is probably late February at best. -- SkotyWA T C 09:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
for accidentally removing your comment as I added mine. I was heading back to reinsert it when I saw you beat me to it. Sorry. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 21:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I'd like to get your feedback on something -- here or at my talkpage, please. Another editor, User:Doc9871, just accused me of being the main account for User:Dylan_Flaherty at an ANI over the Palin article:
"If I had to pick one editor as a possible Dylan master, it would be PrBeacon (talk · contribs). The wikistalk is impressive[31] ... and I'm not seeing much in the way of edit overlap (I could be wrong). If a CU is run, I'd put my money here." - Doc9871 [4]
My response is directly below his.
[5] I probably made a mistake in mentioning the another editor who just resumed his snarky retorts from a few months ago, elsewhere, and who just replied at ANI too.
I wasn't directly involved in the dispute at the Palin article or at the ANI. But from our discussions at the SPLC & TPM articles, I considered Dylan to be a reasonable minded editor. I wasn't aware of his aruments at Palin. In the ANI, I posted a couple of small points to support his right to defend himself. I don't know how to read that wiki-stalk thing that Doc linked [6], other than noticing that the same list for him & Dylan [7] seems similar -- and it shows nothing more than overlapping interests. If and when a CU is performed, I expect an apology from him but I'm not about to write that at ANI as it sounds as petty as his post does. But his accusations seem too serious to just toss out there. Regards, - PrBeacon (talk) 07:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I uploaded a edited version of the second image for the wikipedia Facial (sexual) page after reading through the discussion. Unfortunately user "Ohnoitsjamie" continued to revert the image back. I have tried contacting Jamie on his talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ohnoitsjamie but I can't find the link to post on his talk page. Any help would be really appreciated. The new edited image can be found here ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Facial.jpg) and was created by the User Seedfeeder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.188.2.174 ( talk) 20:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cptnono, I see you deleted a user's attempt to contextualize and locate Operation Payback within the historic continuum. In this and similar cases, rather than simply deleting, and recommending that the user concerned post their edit to the discussion page, please could you post it there yourself (in case the relevant user were to fall inactive or be otherwise engaged, thus forestalling discussion). I do not know whether in this case some preliminary material might be salvaged and retained on the main page prior to consensus being reached on the discussion page. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 13:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Cptnono has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day... Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I just did some work on List of Seattle Sounders FC seasons to add a nice lead section to it. I've dabbled with this list in the past adding a bunch of the columns that are there now. I'm considering nominating it for featured list, but I'm not sure if it meets the criteria (specifically it may be too short). What do you think? Would it be a quick fail (and therefore a waste of time) or should I go ahead and try? -- SkotyWA T C 23:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
A longterm IP editor says Merry Christmas Cptnono! -
220.101
talk
\Contribs
00:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello Cptnono! There is a mediation cabal case naming you in a dispute - I have volunteered to mediate the problem and I would like to know if you would be accepting of the process. Cheers! Lord Roem ( talk) 15:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey, it's not too late to sign up! Where would you like to represent? J Milburn ( talk) 12:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't recall for sure, but did Grapefruit also threaten to look you up on Google? ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I did not. Never did I threaten to investigate you. Deliciousgrapefruit ( talk) 21:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
PLease quote verbatim the passage where I say this. Deliciousgrapefruit ( talk) 21:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
That wasn't an effort to expose your identity, but your political biases. Deliciousgrapefruit ( talk) 22:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
And I am upset because you've been bullying the page and acting like you run wikipedia or something.Fuck you. FUCK YOU> FUCK YUOU FUUUUUUUUCK YOUOOUOOUUOOUOUOUOUUOOUOU!!!!! STOP PUSHING ME AROUND ASSHOLE> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU ARE A FUCKING BULLLY and you are a biased editor who controls the Beck page. FUCK YOU. Deliciousgrapefruit ( talk) 22:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
YOU F ING WIN. LET THEM F ing BAN ME. WIKIPEDIA IS PATHETIC BECAUSE IT LETS PUNKS LIKE YOU RUN THE SITE. Deliciousgrapefruit ( talk) 22:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
AND STOP DELETING MY POSTS Deliciousgrapefruit ( talk) 22:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Cptnono has not deleted an of your posts. It looks like one of your posts got accidentally deleted here by Gsbus8 who was in an edit conflict with you, but I'm not seeing any other example of one of your posts being deleted. -- AerobicFox ( talk) 00:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Someone has deleted numerous of my posts and topics on the discussion page. Deliciousgrapefruit ( talk) 19:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
They are there my friend. Deliciousgrapefruit ( talk) 00:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, happy new year and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 01:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Seattle Sounders FC Barnstar | |
For your dedicated work (2 separate FA reviews) getting the Sigi Schmid article promoted to FA I am proud to be the one awarding you this Sounders FC Barnstar. Excellent job. SkotyWA T C 02:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC) |
Good news, 2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final has just passed WP:GA review and now has that most excellent green icon in the top right. Keeping the progress going, I opened a peer review for the article in the hopes of getting it prepared for an FA review. If you have some spare cycles, it would be great if you would take a moment and read the article and provide feedback/suggestions on the prose (or anything else). Thanks. -- SkotyWA T C 06:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Gokkun: per WP:CONSENSUS, the general operative rule is, more or less, stare decisis - failing consensus, or other indicator for change such as application of a policy, the existing state is retained. You people use this all the time to sneak in inappropriate material - if nobody notices and objects for a certain time, viola, it gets to stay, absent a consensus to remove. Very nice. But you can't have it both ways. In this particular case, the existing state is for the image not to be in the article. Herostratus ( talk) 14:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, very much, for doing the GA Review for Tory Christman, much appreciated. I think you forgot to list the page at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society? Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 15:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
You wrote in a recent edit summary, "you cannot close an RfC you are involved in. [9] You also ignored several related comments". In fact, WP:RfC says, "If consensus has been reached before then, the RfC nominator(s) can remove the RfC tag...." It appears that consensus was reached. I understand that the far right like to call their opponents "left-wing", but articles must reflect a neutral point of view, not the view of the far right. TFD ( talk) 01:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello Cptnono. See my proposal at WP:AN3#User:Snowded reported by User:Cptnono (Result: ). Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 03:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey! I just wondered why you removed my stuff from the Gazawar article? Your reasons were a bit arbitrary. Although I agree that it doesnt have to be a new subsection, it could be included in the misconduct regarding IDF soldiers. NPz1 ( talk) 10:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey!
You fail to tell me which rules I have broken regarding the Gazawar article. What information did I fail to include from the source, for the sake of arguments, if that is the problem, why didnt you just tell me which part I left out, or why didnt you add it yourself?
Furhtermore, the information I added is important and fit the controversy of acts carried out by the IDF and should therefore be stated in the article since the subcategory deals with the exact thing. While I agree that it doesnt have to be a new sub for this I could include it somewhere else, no problem.
Furthermore, why do you removed Tancredo? I have spoken with Acroterion about this. I then edited the tex, add it again and used the discussion page to let people know of the add and called for critcism and more information about the specific topic.
Furthermore, why do you removed Cassese part?
Again, your reasons are arbitrary. NPz1 ( talk) 11:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey!
You still fail to adress my questions, which rule have I broken regarding these 3 articles? We need to remove all sorts of POV arguments NPz1 ( talk) 12:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey!
Again please work with me.
Hey!
Well you got the burden of proof to present the rules that I have broken. I also used the talk-page for Tancredo, so why didnt you approach me there? NPz1 ( talk) 12:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey!
Yes you have the burden of proof because you are the on accusing and claiming. Also, as stated before, we need to remove all POV related arguments. NPz1 ( talk) 12:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey!
Its very simple, if you accuse someone of a breach etc you got the burden of proof to present the facts, namely the violations of rules, just giving me a link doesnt expose any violations, it rather points out that POV is being used to remove stuff on an arbitrary basis. NPz1 ( talk) 12:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey!
Please work with me. Removal is not based on arbitrary or made up terms like "problematic", it is based on the Wikipedia rules - and those are very clear. The same rules you have failed to present. Like I said, giving me links doesnt expose any violations. NPz1 ( talk) 13:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey!
Someone reverted my edit without reason, as you can see I took use of your guidelines you gave me the other day - namely I have shortened it, removed and put it under an already present category. The person who reverted it must have missed that. Again we must remove all such POV arguments. NPz1 ( talk) 15:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
You have some nerve, mate. I haven't so much as looked at that article since the last time you gave me that ban nonsense, and you're giving me a second warning for vandalising it? You've removed my comment from your talk page, so you are clearly annoyed by my politics, and obviously allowing your bias to interfere with your duties as an administrator at Wikipedia. I won't go so far as to call you corrupt, but perhaps you should stand down from your position if you cannot keep your own feelings in check. This isn't a forum for conservatives to suppress free speech that they don't agree with. I've been editing at Wikipedia for many years now, and although I might not log in any more, I'd appreciate it if you had the stones to talk to me about your problem, rather than give me the standard, anti-vandal bot post that I have received twice. I would really like to hear your argument regarding my vandalism of Wikipedia's articles before you go and ban me. Personally, I don't think you have a foot to stand on, so tell me otherwise. 110.174.91.113 ( talk) 16:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cptnono. If NPz1 violated 1RR, please make a report at WP:ANEW or WP:AE. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 02:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I have posted to the user's talk page and to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring about this. (The user removed my talk page post two minutes after I posted it, which, in view of past history, is not surprising.) I considered an immediate block, but decided against it for a couple of reasons. Please feel free to contact me about any further problems with this editor. After all the warnings and advice that have been given, I will be willing to block if there is any continuation at all. JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to
The Bushranger (
submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by
Hurricanehink (
submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to
Yellow Evan (
submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for
Talk:Hurricane King/GA1,
Miyagawa (
submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for
Dognapping, and
Jarry1250 (
submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (
explanation), claiming for
Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!
A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing my nomination of 2010 Panama City school board shootings. I plan to start working on your suggestions right away, but I was wondering if you could hold the review for a few days while I fix up the article. Let me know if this sounds reasonable. -- Ashershow1 talk• contribs 20:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could finally make some progress on actually improving the article. I'll start digging up some vegan sources and info which we can maybe add to the article. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ 23:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Sry, I didnt realized that the videos were deleted by the user and yes, the I added the other videos. there is more of them that are going to be released that show the police shooting at protesters. I would for you to take a look at the article and tell me what do you think and where can e=we improve. I also would welcome your edits -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 21:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you take a look please ? There's a single user account beobjectiveplease making continual edits which arent balanced. Thanks Babasalichai ( talk) 12:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I didn't understand your revert of the live coverage EL at 2011 Egyptian protests. Can you explain? Ocaasi ( talk) 20:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I have a long list of reasons to include the link; could you add the reasons not to here:
This is what I have so far:
Arguments against the link: link violates NOTNEWS; link won't be current once the live feed is replaced by another video;... [note: I added several more at the the link below]
Ocaasi ( talk) 00:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I posted it here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#External_Link.3F__Al_Jazeera_YouTube_Channel_Live_Feed. Though I disagree with your opinion, and have no problem soliciting other people's feedback for or against, I think your summary of the situation at WP:ELN was an obvious breach of practices for neutrally describing disputes or otherwise merely providing a very short link. The description you left was one-sided and biased. We have WP:CANVASS to guide bringing others into the debate. I think you'll see the Jimbo talk page summary taking another stab at neutrality. If you are going to be a stickler for 3RR or not, I'd appreciate if you kept that other guideline in mind. Ocaasi ( talk) 01:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
3RR note: Your list of relevant edits is all-inclusive, but the EngVar issue really had 'absolutely nothing' to do with it and though they 'can be contentious' were not contentious in this context and it's quite evident from the diff and the edit history that there was just an i.p. who hadn't encountered British spelling before. No need to insinuate otherwise, even tangentially. Ocaasi ( talk) 04:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)... I think it was a little unnecessary, maybe sneaky, to collect other unrelated reverts from the history; you seem to have gone out of your way to make it more of an issue. After the extensive work done at that page by people trying to keep it in good shape from a continual assault of ips, vandalism, non-discussion, etc., it's not to fitting to have a blind selection of those efforts mined for un-related policy purposes. You were just following protocol, but I think you have missed the point and the context along the way if that is how you use efforts to improve constantly changing pieces of a complex article as points to bolster a 3RR case. Ocaasi ( talk) 04:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello Cptnono, thank you for your review of Obsidian (1986 video game)'s GA attempt. I believe I've done what I can with the points brought up in the review, when you have time could you give the GA review an update. Thanks. Someone another 13:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Many edits now taking place would love your paticipation as it was helpful a few months ago and we seem to be making progress. Babasalichai ( talk) 23:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I have reported your recent actions to the WP:ANI. // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi! As you mentioned I should bring up author chats on RSN, I checked the archives, and realised that I have already brought it up there once in 2009. The answer I got was kind of... unclear though. Bramble claw x 23:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you for your hard work in bringing Falafel to Good Article status. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 20:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC) |
Re: [10] I looked around on the Commons for the USOC match pictures you mentioned, but didn't find any. Can you give me a pointer? -- SkotyWA T C 02:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to notify you of my reply in that section. Until minutes ago, I was unaware that you responded to me, as I removed the page from my watchlist weeks before your latest comment. — LOL T/ C 20:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to
The Bushranger (
submissions) (first, with 487 points) and
Hurricanehink (
submissions)(second, with 459), who stormed the first round.
Casliber (
submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen
here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to
Jarry1250 (
submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to
Stone (
submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.
Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.
Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I have written a review at Talk:Operation Titstorm/GA2 and placed your nomination on hold. Racepacket ( talk) 13:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I have been following the AE . Here's what I see with the following links from SD's very recent history: All of these reverts were made within moments of each other, like, yesterday. If they allow SD to continue to rid himself of opposition, then he will be free to cruise around WP without opposition, changing articles en masse like these, with the same edit summary (Not located in Israel) [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] Here are a couple more recent reverts for good measure [20], [21] Will the admins tell us that this is "collaborative editing"? 172.129.98.151 ( talk) 16:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm really new at wikipedia, so I don't know if this is the right way to contact you, but I was wondering what the correct article for the cascadia summit was. -Element1151 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Element1151 ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Yeah, I guess that makes more sense. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Element1151 ( talk • contribs) 02:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Re: [22] Thanks dude, you started my day off great. Regarding the WikiCup, I don't think I'd be a very good competitor. I'm averaging about 2 FAs a year, and my disposible time for Wikipedia is not increasing. It is a fun outlet to build my writing muscles on. I am interested in finishing off the seasons list and giving it a shot at FL review. I'm not confident we'd succeed, but I'm interested in giving it a shot anyway. Last thing... can you believe the season is finally hear!? It has been a long offseason.-- SkotyWA T C 16:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I take critiques of my work by thoughtful editors such as yourself very seriously. Can you elaborate a little and give me specific examples of my writing in this article that you felt were overly emotional or that gave undue weight to a particular POV? If I did do stuff like that, I agree with you that it's not an issue for AE, but I disagree with your idea that it should be tolerated because the topic is emotional. It's precisely with emotional topics that bad editing should be tolerated the least. Needless to say, I agree with your critique of Gatoclass' behavior, but I wouldn't be as nonchalant about it as you seem to be. Anyway, I think that my editing on this article was pretty good by absolute standards (and obviously as compared to that of Gatoclass and his bodyguards), but if you can give me useful criticism, I'll listen carefully. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 13:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey Cptnono!
I'm wondering if the license tag on this is valid or not. Can we add to the article here? -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 09:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, my kind of article: dotted with photos. And good idea! I swapped them, and I think it'll be acceptable this way, as well as looking better. The photo of the canal crossing is a good one. Maybe if we supplement it with a photo of the Israeli crossing, but I don't know where to find that. -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 21:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
You have been active in past on Rabbi Pinto a major feature on him has come out - would appreciate if you can assist at Rabbi Pinto page. http://forward.com/articles/136250/ Babasalichai ( talk) 11:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on March 19, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 19, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 ( talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 19:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Seattle Sounders FC is a Major League Soccer (MLS) team based in Seattle, Washington that plays its home matches at Qwest Field. It was established in November 2007 as an MLS expansion team. The league's 15th team; Sounders FC played the first match of its inaugural season on March 19, 2009. During their first two seasons every home game was sold out, they set a new MLS record for average match attendance, and they sold the most season tickets in the league. Seattle finished both seasons with a winning record and qualified for the MLS playoffs. In 2009 Sounders FC became the second expansion team in MLS history to win the U.S. Open Cup, and in 2010 became the first ever MLS team to repeat as Open Cup champions. Fans selected the Sounders name for the club through an online poll in 2008, making the Seattle Sounders FC the third Seattle soccer team to bear the moniker. ( more...)
I seem to remember you know your way around policies regarding photos. What do you think about this?? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 22:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I've just removed your last comment. It ended with straight abuse directed toward another editor. Please, could you just rephrase it, sticking to the issue (not those you're arguing with) and leave out the swearing. -- Simon Speed ( talk) 09:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Please reply to this: [24] -- Supreme Deliciousness( talk) 10:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Concerning the emails you have received, could you elaborate more in their nature? What of my edits and other users edits have been sent too you? Who are these people that have sent you this? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 11:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is
Hurricanehink (
submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H.
Piotrus (
submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "
vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.
A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCupand the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I think your recent posting has ended up in the wrong section - perhaps you should fix this. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I dont think you noticed that the last image you reverted was from the main square, on Land Day? Palobserver ( talk) 16:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
You have reverted Facial (sex act) twice, a further revert will be edit warring in defiance of WP:3RR and you will be subject to sanctions. You have been warned. Please do not edit war. You need to work this through with the other editor or open a discussion on the talk page. Herostratus ( talk) 05:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
I note that you've been asked plenty of times to stop edit warring, and I see your name come up a lot. Please note: 3RR is not a license to revert three times in a day. And you most definitely understand that: a month ago, you told someone who did exactly the same thing as you (three reverts in one day) "If you do not see what you did as edit warring then you should simply go away. End of story. No excuse. Fuck off my page." [25]. You have not stopped edit warring despite requests, and have avoided blocks only by filibustering requests to you to do so. This block is a request for the future: please stop edit warring. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 20:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Cptnono ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was not edit warring. I was stopping an IP from vandalizing the page. I also did not breach 3/rr. If this is rejected I would be happy to give a more in depth explanation but it really shouldn't be needed.Cptnono (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC). Disregard, here is my reasoning: The following list of recent reverts of the image (not other vandalism related to the image but there was plenty of that too) *[44] revert of an IP removing the image by another user @ 00:46, 22 December 2010*[45] revert of an IP removing the image by another user @ 15:04, 22 December 2010 *[46] Semi protection due to vandalism *[47] another user restoring the image after accidentally removing it while fixing vandalism *[48] revert of an IP removing the image by another user @ 14:37, 27 March 2011 *[49] revert of an IP removing the image by another editor @ 02:03, 2 April 2011 *[50] revert of an IP by me at 23:32, 10 April 2011 *[51] the same @ 23:37, 10 April 2011 *[52] me reverting Herostratus @5:03, 11 April 2011 Previous discussion *Talk:Facial (sex act)/Archive 3# 2 images started by me at 06:19, 19 November 2010 Note: **Support from another established editor **Note support from Herostratus who said "... I'm also not a big fan of anon editors jumping in with edits on controversial issues. For a contentious issues such as this, edit summaries are not enough - the editor should engage on the talk page if he thinks the image shouldn't be included." Also note that I did not say I was reverting based on no consensus but based on not allowing an edit from a malicious IP, lack of talk page use, and BRD. My name comes up alot for incivility not edit warring. MtO blocked for the wrong reason. Lucky for me, I was not uncivil in this case. And no, I do not often edit war which is clear in my block log. HS was gaming the system by going to his page after I was stopping a vandal and MtO fell for it since he doesn't like seeing me talking smack so much. He made it clear in his block reason. That being said, I do understand that NOTTHEM is not an argument. But I think I covered the rest of it with the diffs above. And did I make any reverts after? No I went to bed so there is no preventative measures here but purely punitive (even though I was stopping a vandal who refused to use the talk page). And note the user just above who supported my reverts.
Accept reason:
While I don't normally revert a 12 hour long block... in this case there was no reason for that block to be in Cptnono's block log. There was no violation of 3RR, and there was certainly no warning by an uninvolved user. Whether Cptnono thought someone else should be blocked for reverting 3 times is irrelevant, two wrongs don't make a right. There is no clear reason for me to believe Cptnono should have been blocked, at the most Magog the Ogre should have protected the article and allowed the discussion take place on the talk page. This being said Cptnono should not further continue to revert any changes on the article until the dispute is resolved, and should try to remain calm and civil as this discussion unfolds. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Even you can unblock if you realize you were wrong MtO. If you do not realize you were wrong then so be it. But I am taking this to ANI before or after since Herostratus is gaming the system again. And please back up your accusation that I edit war and filibuster to get out of it. I am uncivil but that was not the block reason and not applicable to this instance. Cptnono ( talk) 02:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
There's a move request discussion going on at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority#Requested move, with which you were previously involved. I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new discussion. Nightw 08:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
First, it wasn't initially clear to me what that message on my talk page was talking about. The warning that you 'dittoed' was for vandalism that I didn't commit (the person who did it had cracked the key to my wireless network, which was weak, and I had to change it). Second, as far as the alleged 'discussion on the talk page' is concerned, I see no such thing [26]. What are you talking about? If it is in the archives, it is not an ongoing discussion, and that comment about tags by Supreme Deliciousness did not even receive one response. Tourism in the West Bank belongs in the Tourism in the Palestinian territories article. Who is arguing whether or not the West Bank is part of Israel? Most maps don't show it as part of Israel, either. 96.26.213.146 ( talk) 04:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
How many Palestinians have you met? Just curious. - asad ( talk) 13:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Enh, Dan Savage is still not a good source for questions of fact, unless he's stepped up his game recently. He's still mainly an activist, and activists, whether on the left or right or wherever, are suspect. To the extent that he's not activist, he's not scholar or regular journalist. Being on the youtubes or whatever doesn't much affect that.
What is this about ANI? No one is going to ANI. I'm not sure what you are talking about, sorry. Herostratus ( talk) 03:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the link Cptnono. I had been asking Ameer for more practical advice, as in what's missing from the article and what needs to altered/added before a review. It's just that it's my first attempt at an A-Class review. If you can offer any help on that, I'd appreciate it a lot. Cheers! -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 08:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Cptnono, for the good news and the kind words. I don't know who the person was who originally nominated this article for GA status (or why) but when the first reviewer failed it, I felt somehow personally slighted (I thought I had done a good job), so I made what I thought was a major effort to improve it, and then renominated it. It was humbling to have you (as the second reviewer) point out all the many things that were still wrong with it! However, you were sufficiently supportive to keep me from giving up entirely and your always helpful suggestions showed me that improvements were still possible. Thanks for hanging in. This GA status is as much your work as mine. Wardsislander ( talk) 13:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Round 2 of the
2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round.
Casliber (
submissions), who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.
This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to
Hurricanehink (
submissions) and
Nergaal (
submissions) who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored;
featured sounds,
featured portals and
featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to
Candlewicke (
submissions) (who has been eliminated) for his work on
In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!
Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at Imzadi1979's talk page.
Imzadi 1979
→
22:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I wanted you to know that I added your name to the GA nom. I wanted to make sure you got credit for your work on this article (earlier, and more recently). Hopefully this counts for the WikiCup. Thanks for your work on this article. -- SkotyWA T C 18:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Apologies for going missing in action after nominating this article for GA. We're trying to sell our home right now and it's getting pretty hectic. Hopefully I'll be able to put more time into the article this weekend or next. Thanks again for your help with this nomination. I expect someone will start reviewing it this week or next. -- SkotyWA T C 15:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I have asked, more than once, several questions of you at the talk page of falafel. Could you please answer those questions? Thank you, nableezy - 21:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
We're half way through round 3 of the
2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round.
Casliber (
submissions), of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by
Racepacket (
submissions),
Hurricanehink (
submissions) and
Canada Hky (
submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at
featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.
A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you I'm happy to help. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, could you be more specific about what article or incident you refer to? If I "ignored IP vandalism", the article in question may just not be on my watchlist or something, maybe? Herostratus ( talk) 14:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
You said you thought AgadaUrbanit was "actively discussing a perennial request without being a jerk". I asked whether you honestly thought AgadaUrbanit wasn't being a jerk in that discussion. I didn't call AgadaUrbanit a jerk.
I will remove my comment about manure. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 05:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
WP:AE#Cptnono nableezy - 19:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Further to this request for enforcement, this message is to inform you that, for 6 months (until 27 December 2011), you are prohibited, under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, from interacting with Nableezy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in accordance with the standard interaction ban detailed at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Interaction ban. You may not:
In accordance with this restriction, you also may not submit a request for arbitration enforcement that concerns Nableezy. If you violate this restriction, your account may be blocked from editing by any administrator. If any aspect of this restriction is unclear, please feel free to contact me. AGK [ • 22:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Howdy. In an effor to be civil, I wanted to reply to your accusation that my removal of your tags was 'sneaky'. It wasn't. I waited a few days to see if there would be a flood of activity to honor them, but there wasn't any. I happen to disagree with you that the tags are necessary. However, I do agree with you that there is an oversaturation of 'genre' junk in the lede that can be removed, and I pledge to do it - just give me a few days. On the neutrality issue, I do completely disagree and suggest you haul in an admin if you think it has merit. The regular writers have done their best to use bona fide secondary sources, and to claim it reads like a fanboy page is rather condescending. Best, A Sniper ( talk) 17:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was
Casliber (
submissions) who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by
Wizardman (
submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by
Eisfbnore (
submissions), who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by
Hurricanehink (
submissions), who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.
No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.
We would again like to thank
Jarry1250 (
submissions) and
Stone (
submissions) for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.
Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Independence Award | |
Hope fireworks are legal in the state of Washington | ||
Sincerely, AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC) |
YES! That makes me even hungrier for bacon. They aren't legal but that doesn't stop us. VICTORY! Hope your day is going great.
According to this source
[27], War Dept. gave notice of changes needed on June 1, 1909 for NP RR bridge over west Duwamish Waterway. Earlier than 1912 if this is your bridge. (I guess this
[28] is the Eng. book you found. Interesting design!) Will return if I find something better. (Found nothing at historylink.org)
Twang (
talk)
19:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
[back] Toughie! no date found. Bridge span 160 ft. Two 25 HP DC motors.
[29] Flickr photos
[30]. May have been first Strauss heel-trunion bridge. Abandoned.
[31]
[32]
Twang (
talk)
21:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Interesting search. On the 1909 thing: a couple of places said that NP's first bridge was a trestle; didn't see any other mention of its location, so War Dept. might have meant it. Other thoughts: there were lots of engineering mags by that time, so the 1912 articles might have covered it soon after it was built. Note Strauss applied for a 2nd patent in 1908 that took a couple of years (and took the city to court over using one without a license). Amazing that with all the rail-buff sites noone seems to have a date. Good luck!
Twang (
talk)
04:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't being malicious. I restored captions that make as much sense as the one you restored. As I wrote in my edit summary on June 16 -- describing her as "unsmiling" is such a "duh!" caption that one might as well describe her as "brown-haired". See the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 06:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I think I just figured something out: You think I showed up at that article to stir trouble because of our differences at Israel- and Palestine-related articles, don't you? My first edit at Facial was in November 2007, before you were a registered editor. While I sometimes check other editors' contribution histories in accordance with policy, I would never hound somebody just to annoy them.
In any event, I'm very sorry that I've caused you so much upset. It's clear that the word "unsmiling" is very significant to you, although I can't understand why. I won't change the caption again, although I may start a new discussion in the coming weeks to see if consensus has changed since December.
Good night. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 07:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
On a previous occasion, whilst I was serving a 3 week ban on editing the "Gaza War" article, I made several suggestions on the talk page which where accepted by yourself and other editors. However on that occasion nobody else actually made the edits they had agreed with. On that occasion, out of frustration and ignorance about how Wiki bans worked, I made the edits myself and consequently received an indefinite ban (which, you may recall, I am still serving) on editing articles broadly related to the Arab/Israel conflict. I have no intention of committing the same error a second time, and am consequently unable to act on your suggestion to "copy edit" or "Paist" material into the article. Prehaps, since you appear to agree with my proposals, you would be good enough to consider making these edits yourself? Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I let him off the hook too quickly yesterday. What do you think? Calling another editor an ass is something I wouldn't dream of being able to get away with, and I literally shudder to think what would happen if you ever called an editor in I/P an ass. But the sad part is that it only confirmed the problem that I initially started that discussion to address with him one-on-one (before his team of defense attorneys showed up). Tell me if you feel there's a case to be made and if you'd be on-board with it or if you think it'll be a vain effort at this stage, based on your experience.— Biosketch ( talk) 02:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I can't find any sources for the USOC stats in this article. I thought I would find them in the media guide, but no such luck. I can't figure out how to remove the USOC and CCL from the stats table, but it appears that's all that needs to be done to pass the article. Can you help? -- SkotyWA T C 07:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Cptnono, I hope you are fine, and I will still see you around. In any case good luck to you in everything you are up to. It was great to know you! Best wishes.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 19:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
All Around Amazing Barnstar | |
Thank you for your help getting Steve Zakuani through WP:GA review. You stepped in when I had no time and saw it through. For that I recognize you as an all-around amazing Wikipedian and award you this barnstar. Thank you. SkotyWA T C 05:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC) |
I hope you won't be completely out of commission in your semi-retirement. The SSFC task force wouldn't be the same without you. I admit I've been a lot less active lately due to more work, moving homes, and some other family stuff. I'm hoping to ramp back up in the next few months, especially if I have another cup final article to work on (Go Sounders!). Take care and I hope all is well for you in real life. -- SkotyWA T C 05:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Congratulations! |
Thanks for all the work you did in making
Steve Zakuani a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated.
In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) |
|
Thank you for your support |
Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian ( talk) 07:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are
Adabow (
submissions) (Pool A, 189 points) and
PresN (
submissions) (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on
Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (
White-bellied Sea Eagle, from
Casliber (
submissions)) and two featured lists (
Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and
Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from
Another Believer (
submissions)). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!
There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 11:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 17:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cptnono. I was wondering if you could lend your opinion here [33] on reliable sources for Celtic F.C. supporters if you have time as you've lent a hand on a similar subject before. Thanks Mattun0211 ( talk) 02:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Cheers - despite everything you managed a neutral input ;) Mattun0211 ( talk) 09:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The idea of parallel states ("in which Jews and Arabs would owe their allegiance to separate parliaments but share a single territory and army") is interesting, but I think it would be an administrative nightmare. If I read this correctly, the suggested breakdown is based on religion and ethnicity, not geographic location. So an Arab living in Tel Aviv would be governed by an Arab parliament (and Arab laws), while the Jewish next-door-neighbor would be governed by a Jewish parliament (and Jewish laws)? What would happen if their laws differed, or contradicted each other? Who determines land ownership rules and building rights? Which parliament would command the military? I suspect that the parallel states solution would have similar "separate is not equal" problems as segregation had in the United States. Imagine if the result of the civil rights movement in the United States hadn't been integration, but instead further segregation resulting in two governments - one for blacks, and one for whites - with a shared military and territory for both. I think it would have been highly unlikely that both governments would be equal, and you would have similar administrative headaches.
I'm still somewhat torn over whether the best solution is a one-state solution or a two-state solution, but I also doubt that either side has the willpower or the motivation to come to an agreement anytime soon. Israel has very little short term incentive to come to any sort of deal on the issue, and lacks long term vision. The Palestinians have very little short term bargaining power, and can only bootstrap themselves so far. My feelings at the moment are that it would actually be best for the United States to not veto the Palestinian UN bid of statehood in September, as a way to just sort of throw the kids into the pool so that they learn to swim together, but I don't think the United States has the political willpower to make a move that bold. ← George talk 19:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:
We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists,
Another Believer (
submissions),
Piotrus (
submissions),
Grandiose (
submissions),
Stone (
submissions),
Eisfbnore (
submissions),
Canada Hky (
submissions) and
MuZemike (
submissions). Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.
In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate Ucucha ( talk · contribs). The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.
A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't care what your issue is with User:Cerejota but please refrain from making personal attacks as you did at User talk:Cerejota#Richard Dawkins. Comment on the content, not the contributor. -- Mrmatiko ( talk) 10:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey, just saw your edit of 2011 USOC final. Haven't crossed paths with you much. If you'll be online over the next couple of days, I was wondering if you'd mind reviewing this and make any changes/tweaks you think should be made. I plan to nominate it at WP:TFAR the next time the TFA directors schedule a swath of articles (probably early next week). I'm waiting because it's kind of a longshot with only one point (and a weak one at that), but I figure it's worth a try. -- SkotyWA T C 02:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Great news! It's been scheduled] to appear on the main page on October 4th. Thank you for your supporting vote. Since there is no archive for WP:TFAR I archive WP:SSFC related articles here. -- SkotyWA T C 16:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your support at my latest AE. Too bad it didn't work out as I hoped. Wikifan Be nice 10:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
'The page was locked due to edit warring. If you revert again you will be edit warring and someone like me will be seeking your block. Instead, follow the dispute resolution process. I recommend that an admin gives you a heads up on the additional scrutiny editors are under in this topic area based on a history of disruptive editing. I feel that I cannot give you the proper advice since you choose to not listen and I do not have the patience do deal with you'. I believe this is from you. I don't see any reference, so have no way to know what page you are referring to, but if it is Itamar attack, than simply reading what I have written would already tell you what I intend to do. I recommend that you check before you give advice, and make it clear what you are writing about. I do not have the patience to deal with you otherwise. Dalai lama ding dong ( talk) 18:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Again it seems you cannot bother to tell me what you are writing about. My name does not appear on the page you gave a link to, and so you are wasting my time with issues that do not apply to me. Why are you doing this? Dalai lama ding dong ( talk) 18:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for chiming in in the brief time they left my complaint up at AN/I. Yes, you are correct...Admins should never use admin tools against anyone they have had a content dispute with. Best wishes.-- MONGO 04:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
to a discussion at Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society/Archives/01/2012#Sealers, removed material if you're interested. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 13:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.
|
---|
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.) The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere. A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits. The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments. The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals:
The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space. We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus. New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern. Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page. |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC).
Your request for clarification has been closed. For the definition of "broadly construed", please refer to the arbitrators' comments. For the Arbitration Committee -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 17:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Falafel, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK [
•
21:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by
Miyagawa (
submissions),
Hurricanehink (
submissions) and
Sp33dyphil (
submissions), all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (
1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and
Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's
1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the
scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.
If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 12:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, why you removed the book section from Death article, it has reliable sources, supported by the Chuck himself and probabely the only book written about him when he was alive, please do not remove it again. Spada II ♪♫ ( talk) 19:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I have provided some page view stats regarding your comments about what readers are most likely to be looking for on Talk:Seattle Sounders#Re-requested move. Cheers, Number 5 7 08:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
[34] A bit harsh, no? Clicked the wrong button?-- Terrillja talk 15:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Cookies! | |
Walter Görlitz has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}! |
![]() New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Cptnono/Archive 6! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is
Hurricanehink (
submissions), who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners:
Dreamafter (2007),
jj137 (2008),
Durova (2009) and
Sturmvogel_66 (2010). The final standings were as follows:
Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.
No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.
Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
It was good to have you on board this time around- we hope you enjoyed the competition! In case you are interested, signups for next year are open. Thanks, J Milburn and The ed17 20:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Awww, that's disappointing but I understand your reasoning, especially about the copyvio stuff. I wasn't too sure myself about the reliability of YT in this case, obviously, but I hated seeing all those names with "citation needed" after every single one. It bothered me, I'm not sure why. I probably should have done in the first place what you eventually did. Thanks for letting me know you were taking them out.
p.s. what are your thoughts on removing that first paragraph in the "Popularity and Imitators" section? I asked on the Walken talkpage but so far have no takers. -- Ella Plantagenet ( talk) 22:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Read it before being a dickhead. - Nathan Johnson ( talk) 17:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I reverted your vandalism to User:William M. Connolley that you did in this edit. Don't do that again. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 04:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Ditto re this edit to the same user's talk page. ScottyBerg ( talk) 15:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Pacific Falafel |
Thank you for going the extra mile to improve this project, even if it means saying "fuck it" ;) AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 06:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC) |
With regards to the Bradden Inman deletion, I should mention that I use the Twinkle add-on to nominate pages for deletion and it's the one that notifies users about deletion discussions. However, in this particular case, I don't think it worked properly since this is the second message I receive with regards to that particular deletion about failing to follow procedure. I apologize for that, I guess I should manually checked to see if it did everything it was supposed to. I've just never had any problems with it in the past so I didn't really think of doing that. Anyways, hopefully there's no hard feelings, I definitely wasn't looking to keep you or any other editor out of the loop. Take care. TonyStarks ( talk) 10:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
You know that you deserve it:) Shrike ( talk) 08:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC) |
mmmmm I quote, "You are welcome to provide sources and edit the article. That is the point of Wikipedia and no one would object. Fuck your face palm, though. See: Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Then feel like a pretentious jerk for facepalming something you could have fixed yourself if you were not so lazy. Cptnono (talk) 07:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)"
Most original contributors prefer to edit their own material after a critique; this is why I did not edit your contribution. As for your language and good humour, I shall pass. 85.78.91.138 ( talk) 07:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Nazi chicks were also hot. Just because they are hot does not mean they aren't evil anti-Semitic subhumans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecleverscreenname ( talk • contribs) 09:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Why did 4chan have it out for you? Your protection logs were 6 long lines of my history so how could I not get curious? Alatari ( talk) 02:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
4chan is anti-Palestine? I got the impression they were anarchists and freedom supporters so now I'm confused. That was an excellent photo you had up; when and where was it taken? Alatari ( talk) 05:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Georgetown Brewing Company requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mt king (edits) 04:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The recent AE thread concerning yourself and Nableezy has been closed. This is not a formal enforcement action, but the consensus was that you should be advised to take greater care to avoid Nableezy in accordance with your interaction ban—in particular, please take care, where practical, to avoid articles where he is active and take particular care not to get into edit wars in which he has been involved. Again, this is not an enforcement action, but you should consider yourself so advised as of this message. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I note your opposition to my proposed process at Wikipedia:Binding RFCs. Are you able to link me to the RFC that you mentioned so I can look over it? I note that my idea would work vastly different to a conventional RFC and be closed by more than one editor, so a consensus among them would be required (that the consensus of the RFC is indeed X or Y) which I feel may address some of your concerns, but I would like to see your example so I can address it. Regards, Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 07:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
WP:AE#Cptnono nableezy - 14:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your response: Nableezy made a response to me and I answered.
I looked at the edit history there and I don't see that he directed anything at your or mentioned you. Could you point it out? -- WGFinley ( talk) 05:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reason why you failed to sign the comment made on the talk page of Arab citizens of Israel?-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 17:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Might as well.
Happy holidays everyone. I won't bother posting something about my family or work or what the shit else since Wikipedia is not Facebook. But I will remind you all to tip your bartender and cabbie extra on nights like tonight (even if their religion makes them boring). Merry Christmas and have a fun and safe New Year's. Cptnono ( talk) 10:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)