We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is
Hurricanehink (
submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H.
Piotrus (
submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "
vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.
A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
A formal Request for Comment has now been started on this topic. Feel free to contribute; best, Ironholds ( talk) 20:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jayron, my last comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett was made concurrently with the closing administrator. When I posted the comment, I did not know that the discussion had closed. Thanks, Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but it also invited several comments in response to yours. There is no impending need to discuss the accuracy of Jacob Barnett's scientific statements on that page anymore. --
Jayron
32 14:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yup. No big deal. :-) Sławomir Biały ( talk)
Hi Jayron. You closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson in September 2010. If you are willing, would you close and summarize Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei? Certified on 2 March, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei is now a week past the normal closing date for RfCs. If you don't have the time or inclination to do it, I'll post a request on WP:AN or WP:ANI, though admins at those venues frequently do not pay attention to such requests (I've had to keep posting timestamps so the threads won't be archived, and if no one responds, I sometimes contact an admin on their talk page or do nothing). Cunard ( talk) 05:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- I may (or may not) close the request, but I would prefer if you posted in a public forum. I am uncomfortable responding to personal invitations to close requests like this, as it gives the impression of non-impartiality; i.e. if you know how a certain admin is likely to close an RFC, you might just seek them out directly. While that may not be the case, the fact that you ask me here, personally, to close the RFC gives the possibility of the appearence of bias, and I'd prefer to keep myself completely clean of even the hint of the chance of the possibility of such accusations. If you post this at WP:AN, someone else may respond, or I may, but at least doing so in a public forum reduces the appearence of bias. --
Jayron
32 05:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have had no involvement with
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei and have never interacted with
Tenmei (
talk ·
contribs). I am as uninvolved as you. When I ask a specific admin on their talk page to close a discussion, I usually have minimal or no involvement in the debate. If I had actively participated in the RfC, I would have posted a request at AN (and posted periodic timestamp updates to prevent archiving) and would not have directly contacted you. I agree with you that the close could be seen as tainted if a participant actively sought out a specific admin to close it.
Per your request, I have posted a request for closure at WP:AN#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei. Cunard ( talk) 05:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have had no involvement with
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei and have never interacted with
Tenmei (
talk ·
contribs). I am as uninvolved as you. When I ask a specific admin on their talk page to close a discussion, I usually have minimal or no involvement in the debate. If I had actively participated in the RfC, I would have posted a request at AN (and posted periodic timestamp updates to prevent archiving) and would not have directly contacted you. I agree with you that the close could be seen as tainted if a participant actively sought out a specific admin to close it.
thanks for the answer re symmetry and IR absorption. clear and informative. Gzuckier ( talk) 14:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
While we have never meet, I wanted to thank you for your attention to this small situation. My intentions with the above editor have (had) been good, in that or little feud started with me trying to direct Mayhem to some wiki policies that related to the edits we were at odds over. As you may have noticed, our interaction quickly spiraled into something else. I recuse myself from further involvement, but am glad that others are there to revert edits. Mayhem unfortunately continues to make bad edits, and bad faith edits. In this edit, you can see that Mayhem admits to having more than one account. I find this troubling primarily because he has singled me out and it seems likely that I have unknowingly encountered him before. To cut to the point, I think a final warning is in order. Thanks, Beach drifter ( talk) 00:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I look forward to your investigation into what I think are this editor's hollow claims. While he has edited his posts extensively I believe with some effort you will find we first came to odds when he made several revedits of my and other contributors edits with no contact or reason. His references to wiki policies came later, as a belated attempt to smoke screen the revedits and trouble tone of communication. I do not make Bad faith edits, and take exception with this comment. Yes I did HAVE (as in past tense) another account, this now belongs to my Ex, I mentioned this account to Drifter only to dispute his "your a noob and better listen to me" theme, otherwise it was none of his business or concern. In answer to his "troubling" concern, I have not encountered Drifter prior to this, nor singled him out. It might be a good time to remember just how many people are actually involved in our collective endeavor perhaps?. To cut to the point, any review of his activities during the last 5 months will show a warning and final warning are in order, ironic as that may be. MayhemMatador ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayhemmatador ( talk • contribs) 07:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
You removed my, and several other users, comments at
WP:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles
I have explained this at
Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump_(proposals)/Proposal_to_require_autoconfirmed_status_in_order_to_create_articles#Removal_of_comments_by_me_and_several_other_users
Could you please reinstate the comments you removed.
Arjayay (
talk) 15:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't. You need to contact User:Rd232 who did remove them. I am quite sure it was an accidental mistake, and he would be glad to restore them for you if you ask him. See [1] which is the edit where he did so... -- Jayron 32 15:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Thread moved from my talk page.
Cuddlyable3 (
talk) 20:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I would appreciate you removing all of the examples of my comments that you have collected at
User:Cuddlyable3/English. I would consider it an act of decency on your part to fulfil my request. I am not comfortable with you maintaining this "list of perceived wrongs" in your userspace, and I would prefer not to be part of it. Please delete any comments which originate from me at that page. Feel free to leave comments from other people at that page, but I would request that you leave me out of it. --
Jayron
32 19:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is a simple way to disqualify yourself from the list. Baseball Bugs caught on already [2]. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 20:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- I like having my grammar and spelling mistakes corrected, but that's just me and my upbringing, as my parents were sticklers for correct English usage. However, a lot of people consider it rude to do that. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Jayron; the guy's a troll. He wasn't always, but is now. It's sad - I dunno what happened to change him. He hides behind technicalities to keep his bullying going on as long as possible. I was bullied by him a while ago, and was shocked, as he'd been decent and helpful in the past. People tried to help by making mild comments like Bugs's above, but unfortunately, something stronger was needed. His list of grammatical errors is there to goad editors - it's quite clear, especially considering his recent history. I reckon the best thing to do is ignore. Adambrowne666 ( talk) 21:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I move this post to keep the thread together.
Cuddlyable3 (
talk) 08:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you understand me. I am not asking for ways to be disqualified from the list. I am asking that a) you remove my name, and all quotes from me, from that page and b) that you desist from adding future quotes from me, or any other mention of me, from that list. I am not here to play your little grammar game. Perhaps the friendliness of my last request caused ambiguity. I am now being unambiguous. Remove my name and all of my quotes, and make no further attempt to compile a list of my grammar errors. I don't care what you do or don't do with other people's grammar errors. I do not wish to be part of it. --
Jayron
32 20:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well I think I understand you. You wish to swear at me and ask for what you have placed in the ref.desk archives never to be quoted, as a special exception for yourself. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 08:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I move this post to keep the thread together.
Cuddlyable3 (
talk) 12:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
On wishes
No, in addition to what I asked directly, before, I now also have an additional wish. My additional wish is that you stop mischaracterizing what I say. Oh and one more wish: This conversation is over. --
Jayron
32 12:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Declaring oneself unquotable is that it forces others to interpret with
WP:AGF what one says with the inherent risk of being misunderstood. If you explain coherently what "mischaracterizing" you believe you have suffered at my hands, my contrition will be almost unbearable. Distracting behaviour such as
swearing, sarcasm, frivolous abuse of the apostrophe punctuation symbol which is to be used one at a time and never 12 at a time, and your
strange appeal to decency that appears to abandon other editors to the citing that you yourself find uncomfortable (ask WHY?), together suggest that your communication skills put unusual demands on the luckless reader. BTW for quantity of effort your contributions at the ref.desks are impressive and rightly appreciated, but heavy-handed sarcasm is not your forté.
Cuddlyable3 (
talk) 12:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Since many people consider pointing out their grammar errors to be rude, i.e. uncivil, perhaps you should confine such corrections to those who have explicitly given you permission to do so. (So far, that would be just me.) ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
If you're ever passing by this way, I'll treat you to a nice bit of rump. DuncanHill ( talk) 22:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm flattered, but I tend to prefer my beef from heifers... Still, I genuinely appreciate the offer. I always enjoy a nice steak, even if we can't agree on the proper cut, I take it as a compliment to be offered the opportunity to share a steak with someone... -- Jayron 32 01:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- I received it. Thanks so much! ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 16:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC))
As you are a sports guru, you may want to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball records considered unbreakable. In fact, I think this should be mentioned at the project page if it isn't already. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jayron32. You gave Wdk789 a very good answer to his question about Lugol’s iodine, but he then deleted it. It might interest you to know a little more about Wdk789.
The user account Wdk789 was opened on 25 February 2011. Two days earlier, 23 February, two other accounts were blocked indefinitely on the grounds of being sockpuppets of a blocked user called Kj650. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Kj650/Archive.
The behaviour of Wdk789 is identical to that of Kj650 and his sockpuppets. This was discussed at User talk:WikiDao#User:Kj650. I raised the most recent sockpuppet investigation on Kj650. Wikidao looked like he was prepared to do another one, but I notice Wikidao is on a Wikibreak at present. Feel free to raise a sockpuppet investigation of Wdk789 if you wish. Dolphin ( t) 03:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- New checkuser request filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kj650. Thanks for the headsup. -- Jayron 32 03:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.— Verapar ( talk) 20:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I got your email. If you are having problems with the Michael Jackson page, you're best option is to ask for outside help through one of the things listed at WP:DR. Good luck! -- Jayron 32 00:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, laddie, but you are going to have to: 1) not appear distracted by concerns over the article title and content 2) explain more thoroughly, and with more reasons, why you believe the outcome of the "discussion" was keep. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 04:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, the keep arguements were stronger, more numerous and had more basis in policy and guidelines. In addition to that, there was less support for the delete side, with less policy-based rationale for deleting, versus fixing problems with neutrality via normal editing processes. Most of the delete votes raised concerns that could be fixed by means other than deleting. -- Jayron 32 04:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
why was the page deleted? me and another person worked hard as hell to keep a well-known artist that has played on big venues such as " Epicenter" and was the frontman of " Hollywood Undead" this artist has 3 pages for his released albums and has released 26 songs total, and 10 that are soon to be released in his new Album. Please explain the conclusion of the discussion and why the admins decided to close the page that was strong, we were working on getting refrences. Snyth 05:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snyth ( talk • contribs)
- The page was redirected (not deleted) based on the preponderance of the comments made during the discussion. The majority of people who commented, and the substance of their comments (based on Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and general practices and precedents) thought that the best course of action was to redirect the article in question to the article of the group he belongs to. If you do not think that I correctly interpreted the comments that others made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aron "Deuce" Erlichman, you are free to ask for a review of my actions at Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- Jayron 32 05:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
[3] That is probably the nicest thing anyone has said about me onwiki in the past two years. Thanks for having faith in me. Risker ( talk) 23:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. I doubt you could have gotten to the place you have at Wikipedia if you weren't trustworthy. There's enough suspicion at Wikipedia that the fact that anyone could get anything done with respect to community discipline means that I am generally quite respectful of people that can put together enough general support to hold positions of responsibility. I know I never could... -- Jayron 32 23:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Tried but failed. User:AnemoneProjectors believes that as the images are different and differently named that the deletion discussion does not apply, and undeleted at least one. Also they reversed my replacement of a non-free image with a free one in a character article. They apparently also believe that no image is better than one of the actor. It's too tiresome to deal with those who act this way - Peripitus (Talk)
- Whatever. I am washing my hands of this entire matter as well. I expect that, at some point in the future, someone completely independent of you or I will come to the rightful conclusion that these images do not meet WP:NFCC and should go. Its only a matter of time. I'm in no rush to be right here... -- Jayron 32 23:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
In agreement, and with your succinct edit summary. Peripitus (Talk) 08:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Message added 06:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank you for blocking me. Retrospectively, I can see that I became too involved in an arbitrary editing task and I think I needed to be temporarily blocked to discourage me from that kind of excessively aggressive editing. Fieldday-sunday ( talk) 23:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Your block of 174.45.18.232 ( talk · contribs)
The block and log shows an expiry time of 2 weeks, the talkpage states "blocked indefinitely".
Was the talkpage notice supposed to say two weeks also? Starfallen 17:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- IP addresses should not normally be blocked indefinitely. The person behind it, however, is forbidden from using Wikipedia while the legal threat is active. If he should resume editing under a new IP address, he will be instantly blocked as an extension of the current block. The language of the block notice is intended to be directed at the person, not the IP address per se. --
Jayron
32 17:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I understand, thank you for the explanation! Starfallen 20:41, 26 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 19:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
| Oh, dear. Did I make it seem like I was still interested? Terribly sorry. How embarassing for all of us |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
For months I have been asking for an honest, uninvolved, objective admin. No offense meant, but I do not think you qualify, we’ve met before. I do think that you may be able to take your prejudice into account, and compensate. Let’s try. Many tell me what to do to get unblocked. The very word “unblocked” indicates you don’t get it. Repeating myself? Dead horse? You people speak so many languages, but you cannot follow my poor Junior High School English. I am not talking about being unblocked (or unbanned, whatever that is). I wish I could get Harper Lee to write to you. I emailed Roger Davis, who I admire. He is dealing with similar issues, but on a much higher plane. He was honest, but I must look like an ant to him, so he passed me off to Arbcom. Unfortunately Arbcom is you, the admin culture, who I cannot communicate with. I would like desperately to speak privately. I am not the admin culture, and feel at a disadvantage. I don’t want to use names publically. I cannot notify all the participants, and really do not want to compromise anyone who may support me, I am clearly a pariah. Besides, someone like bugs always shows up. What is the problem with email? My only interest was in one article. I did not feel qualified to edit, so I stayed in the discussion, trying to support effective editors (which I did, did you see where Kierzek and Farawayman fixed it up?). This has often been used against me, but I feel it is a sign of responsibility, not bad faith. A.G.F. Every member of my family is absolutely good faith. My family are teachers, librarians, musicians, donors, volunteers, assistants, fosters, and adopters. We all try to inform, educate, and assist every day. My senior daughter just earned her Masters on the effects on her first grade slum school Rainbow Coalition students of their classroom wiki. Did you catch that? Every day she teaches poor immigrants and outcasts how to read and write English with a wiki. We are in the absolute front line in the battle against ignorance. And instead of A.G.F., I get quack quack quack. I took a shot with you because you time blocked me, instead of indef, and you sounded good. But it brings up a point. Why was I unblocked to start with? Did someone do something, or is this a fluke that I can get through? Shouldn’t the censors silence me soon? How long will this stay up? Thanx. johndearhart@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.236.128 ( talk) 16:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Jayron32, I do not think you really answered what Wm5200 asked. There seems to be a “failure to communicate” somewhere. What conspiracy has he made up? “Admin culture”? Do you deny that an “Admin culture” exists at Wikipedia? Whatever happened at ANI, he did not bring it up, you did. He seemed to trust you. What makes you say “If you don't wish to accept responsibility for your actions”? What has he denied? What makes you think he wants to “make a commitment to working collegially with others”? He appears to be trying to point out a problem, not fix one. Why will nobody talk candidly with him? You are aware that he can’t reply, correct? I am involved. I have known John for a long time, at one time I worked with him for over fifteen years. He’s a strange person who openly calls himself “insane” and most of us thought he was a jerk, but he is not evil. Are you sure you understand what he is saying? 173.15.50.21 ( talk) 20:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I would like to apologize for any misunderstanding. I only posted here because I took what you said at face value, and trusted you. I am sorry that I seem to have offended you. I A.G.F.ed you. I didn’t go back to ANI, I just knew I had seen your name before. I tried to be respectful. I do not see how you people can not perceive a communication problem. I have tried to be polite, in return I feel I have been abused, insulted, and called a homophobe (not by you personally, but this “outing” crap really pisses me off). Isn’t this A.G.F. stuff supposed to work both ways? How did I “claimed I was somehow not impartial”? I said “we’ve met before. I do think that you may be able to take your prejudice into account, and compensate. Let’s try.” Sounds “impartial” to me, that is how it was intended. Why did you say “I've never interacted with him in my life”? Didn’t you just post “I responded to your request for a review at ANI. I provided that review”? Does “interacted” imply personal contact, or did you mean “other than at ANI”? Where did I “claimed that he wasn't getting a fair shake”? I said “the admin culture, who I cannot communicate with.” Again, do you deny “the admin culture” exists? Do you think I can communicate with it effectively? A word about “admin culture”. I have seen this phrase used by some pretty deep people, including Roger, I think. I was under the impression that it was a recognized, legitimate assumption. If you take offense, sorry, none was intended. But do you really maintain that it doesn’t exist? Am I using the term in an inappropriate manner? Or are we not effectively communicating? Why did you say “don't own their actions, and instead blame their situation on forces beyond their control.” What have I denied? Who personally have I blamed? Do you deny that there are “forces beyond” my “control”? Why did you say “If he wishes to edit Wikipedia”? I’ve tried to made it pretty clear I don’t want to edit. Why did you say “he can contact ArbCom or Roger Davies”? I misspelled “Roger Davies”, otherwise I did, and explained the problem. Was the Pilate-ish “washing my hands” meant to refer to a Messianic component, or was it just an unconscious use of a common phrase? I think it is clear that we are not communicating effectively. I have begged for email from anyone, so we can work out our misunderstandings. Will someone please at least tell me if email is considered outside of the rules? This paragraph probably applies to Favonian. Why can I post some times, and not others? And what is the reasoning behind “31 hours”? Why not indef? You have to admit that “31” is an odd choice of numbers, right? Nobody disputes indef, do they? Has something changed, or is this just some odd fluke? Jayron, this is your talk page. I’m sorry if you feel I abused it. Feel free to close any way you want, I won’t be back unless invited. Thanx. johndearhart@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.236.128 ( talk) 23:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC) |
Hello there, Jayron32! Do you have time for a peer review of Eveline Hańska, wife of French novelist Honoré de Balzac? Thanks in advance! Scartol • Tok 17:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thanks. fyi, check me out, if you've not. also, there are more needful places for your comment. Sincerely, Barong 15:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I've known who you are the whole time. I read the papers... -- Jayron 32 15:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
When I first asked questions here I thought they would be answered in good faith. When I witnessed the mocking and beating around the bush that went on on a regular basis I began to feel that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, but I guess not if you want questions answered. But I already wasn't getting that so then I figued if you cant join them beat them. Why is it soooo difficult to get a straight answer around here? everything else has some type of protocol, why isnt there a protocol to answering questions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.254.154 ( talk) 05:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Count Iblis answered your question, and you yelled at him. He was never rude to you, he gave you links and references and equations and all sorts of good stuff, and in return for his voluntary work at answering your question, you shouted at him in ALL CAPS and acted all pissy. Its no wonder people don't want to volunteer to help you find answers, if when answers are given to you in good faith, your response is to do that. -- Jayron 32 05:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I just logged into an unsecure network while in my car waiting to pick someone up, and I can guarantee that the network that this IP address is being assigned to is nowhere near (in location to) the mentioned owning Educational Institution. Can we get a double check that this ownership claim is, in fact, accurate? – AJL talk 05:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Here is the WHOIS data:
[4] and here is the GEOLOCATE data:
[5] FWIW, it geolocates to Boise. --
Jayron
32 05:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just pulled that up. I didn't have time when I first was writing the message to do that. But the Whois and the Geolocate both confirm it is not a College of Western Idaho registered address, right? If so, can we remove that template and/or change it to something else? –
AJL
talk 05:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. Since it Geolocates to Boise, which is nearby, it COULD be used by the College. My IP address (I just checked it) geolocates to a different city than my house it in. (It actually geolocates to a suburb, whereas I live in the main city). So I wouldn't take that to mean anything. Also, many colleges likely purchase their IT services from commercial firms rather than run their own services themselves, this could just be an IP address used by the College which it purchases from the firm of record, and thus doesn't match the WHOIS information. This is more likely considering that this is a smallish community college, and not a major university. Again, this doesn't prove anything one way or the other, except that there's no evidence this is NOT the college in question, but some evidence that it COULD BE. --
Jayron
32 05:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- It was definitely not a CWI network that I logged into, it was a residential network, with very low/non-existent security. So how does one get onto an IP that's not theirs, aside from IP-Spoofing (if that is such a thing)?
- Also, I wouldn't exactly say it's "a smallish community college", it's actually the
second largest in Idaho. –
AJL
talk 05:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Being the second largest community college in Idaho doesn't seem to me to get it out of the "smallish" categorization, if you catch my drift. But, lets just suppose that their IP services are provided by a company that also provides services to the neighborhood in question, and which shuffles addresses regularly using some sort of DHCP system; so that the IP address used at the college yesterday is used by some dude in your neighborhood today, and used by a different customer of the ISP in question tomorrow. I'm not all that technically minded, but I do know that there are a multitude of ways that IP addresses are handled by ISPs, and its quite possible that the same IP address could show up under different uses at different times. -- Jayron 32 05:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. Since it Geolocates to Boise, which is nearby, it COULD be used by the College. My IP address (I just checked it) geolocates to a different city than my house it in. (It actually geolocates to a suburb, whereas I live in the main city). So I wouldn't take that to mean anything. Also, many colleges likely purchase their IT services from commercial firms rather than run their own services themselves, this could just be an IP address used by the College which it purchases from the firm of record, and thus doesn't match the WHOIS information. This is more likely considering that this is a smallish community college, and not a major university. Again, this doesn't prove anything one way or the other, except that there's no evidence this is NOT the college in question, but some evidence that it COULD BE. --
Jayron
32 05:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just pulled that up. I didn't have time when I first was writing the message to do that. But the Whois and the Geolocate both confirm it is not a College of Western Idaho registered address, right? If so, can we remove that template and/or change it to something else? –
AJL
talk 05:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Moved from
WP:ANI#207.170.247.22- Ok, both valid points. You may be right about the DHCP shuffling, and I was thinking it may have been a possibility, but on the off-chance that the school registration has expired, do we really do anything as a result? –
AJL
talk 06:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly, I'm not all that good with the technical stuff really. If you really want an answer, my suggestion would be to head over to WP:OP, and find one of the regulars that work there; they tend to be better at this stuff. Just ask your question of one of them on their user talk page, and reference this conversation, and see if one of them can answer you as to whether or not the tag on that IP address should be changed or not to reflect the WHOIS and GEOLOCATE data. If anyone could answer you, one of them could. -- Jayron 32 00:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, both valid points. You may be right about the DHCP shuffling, and I was thinking it may have been a possibility, but on the off-chance that the school registration has expired, do we really do anything as a result? –
AJL
talk 06:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, at Sarah777's block log I didn't get the block log version of an edit conflict, now it looks like I'm correcting your language when I actually agree with it. And I don't really want to amend the log again if there's no benefit. Shall we just leave it, or would you like me to switch back to yours? -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 13:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I can see why you've blocked him, but he's currently contributing at his user talk regarding an ongoing ANI discussion. -- Dweller ( talk) 14:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have been keeping on top of his talk page and the ANI discussion in question. You will note that I left a note regarding such on his talk page, offering him a concrete and reasonable method by which he can return to editing Wikipedia again. I have not said anything further at either the ANI discussion or his user talk page because there is nothing to add besides which I have said, and which others, especially JamesBWatson, have said. When Light current does something worth commenting on, I will be the first to say something. So far, since my last comments, I have not seen anything he has done that has been worth my comment. -- Jayron 32 20:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I have been an editor on this encyclopaedic website since 2009, and your rage that you just showed on my talk page is rude, undiplomatic, and unforgivable. I have reported your behaviour to Wikipedia, Wikicommons, Your Service Provider and Jimbo Wales. Please GROW UP. -- KontestLead ( talk) 01:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
|
Hello Wikifiers! Sorry this Newsletter is late, It should have gone out a month ago. I've been very busy in real life and didn't have time to get over to the newsletter. In this edition of the Newsletter, we have an editorial written by our new executive coordinator; Guoguo12. Guoguo12 has succeeded Mono due to an indefinite wikibreak. We also have the results of the February and March Mini drives. Happy Wikifying, Sumsum2010, the assistant coordinator of WikiProject Wikify | |||
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 01:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC).
 | |||||
| Volume 4, Issue 2 • Spring 2011 • About the Newsletter | |||||
|
|
Project reports for
| |||
| Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS | |||||
- — Rschen7754bot ( talk) 02:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| Thank you very much for your very detailed, very easy to understand response to my question. Endlessdan ( talk) 15:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC) |
The Buffy wika doesn't list specific ages. Do you know the answer to my questions? Neptunekh2 ( talk) 13:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- If the Buffy wikia doesn't have the information, then the information quite likely doesn't exist. Being a fictional show, the characters don't really exist as real people, and so don't have "birthdays" and specific "ages" unless the show's writers have thought to specifically write about them. If the writers did not create a birthday or an age for a character, then your question is unanswerable. -- Jayron 32 19:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Update, another one, diff. -- Cirt ( talk) 05:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not interested anymore. Watching this is kinda like watching a car accident in slow motion. You know this guy is heading off a cliff, but there's not much left to do for him... -- Jayron 32 05:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you salt this title? The version you just deleted was the second incarnation, and the subject is the pet project of SPA accounts. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 07:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Done --
Jayron
32 13:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 15:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I found the video of him doing the line on YouTube a little after posting that comment but didn't go back to correct it. I remember him now. It's not hard to confuse the two. Dismas| (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
As an editor who was involved with the recent ELNO discussion, "Spam links becoming standard practice," [6] I am inviting you to comment on the proposal to rework the definition of "Official Link". [7]
Regards, ELNO Checking ( talk) 17:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The Boerebetrokke Groep will lodge a complaint about you and your anti-Boer attitude. Apartheid was not all that bad. Maybe we can teach you. -- BoerbetrokkeGroep ( talk) 00:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Following a vote, We have agreed to BAN you from ever joining the Boerbetrokke Groep, as you do not share our values. Your block expires on 2014, 20 years after Apartheid finished in South Africa and the country went to the dogs. Thank You. -- BoerbetrokkeGroep ( talk) 00:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Pobrecito. Killiondude ( talk) 20:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Good job on the pic. I found a Flickr user who uploaded some shots of Lauren's "homecoming" but couldn't find one for Scotty's. Killiondude ( talk) 20:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 | Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's
June Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by about 900 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive
awards for their contributions! If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks! Note: The drive starts June 1, but you can still
sign up! |
Sumsum2010· T· C 04:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
FYI: There is an AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Directional Michigan (3rd nomination) you may be interested in. You participated in previous discussions on the topic, so I am sending you a notification.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:37, 26 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 23:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
You're the only administrator I can think of right now, so I have a favor to ask of you. Can I have the text from the deleted article Space Station 13? I think this game might be notable now, but I can't start the article from scratch. Would it be possible to userfy it to User:Bluefist/Space_Station_13 or something of the like? Bluefist talk 03:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Given that your view was the most supported in the proposal to require autoconfirmed status for article creation, I figured you might be interested in the draft of the trial. After it got moved without a redirect from Kudpung's userspace it has pretty well ground to a halt, and if we want to move forward we need more voices. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 00:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not much of a details kinda guy. I'm a big idea kinda guy. The particulars of how many days the trial runs for, how to calculate the statistics, how long to turn it off for, etc, isn't much interesting to me. Figure something out and go do it, is what I think. Give me a final proposal for a draft, something I can say "yeah" or "nay" to, and I'll vote... --
Jayron
32 00:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- The rough draft of Kudpung's proposal, which is the one I've supported, is the one at the top; there are a couple of others as well. I'll let you know when we have a finalized version of it.
The Blade of the Northern Lights (
話して下さい) 01:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think we've made some progress. Please take a look at this thread and let us know what you think. Thanks. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 07:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- The rough draft of Kudpung's proposal, which is the one I've supported, is the one at the top; there are a couple of others as well. I'll let you know when we have a finalized version of it.
The Blade of the Northern Lights (
話して下さい) 01:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Hy there, I want to thank you for giving me your opinion upon the "Avoiding restructuring of Greek debt-issue". I have some honest doubts about some details, but I appreciate hearing from other (reasonable) points of view. I also gave my basic understanding upon the whole issue and I would be grateful if you gave me your honest opinion about my summary ("good, bad, starts with a mistake, you're wrong, notice that if..."). You may wish to reply in my talkpage instead (actually I think that you should give your opinion in the reference desk for all of us - I'm just concerned that somebody begins shouting: "The reference desk is not the proper place for debates!"). I will certainly understand if you're not interested in the matter. Flamarande ( talk) 14:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC) I'm just interested in economics and politics and I know that hearing the honest opinion of other (reasonable) ppl is the way to a better understanding.
- Thanks. Understand I am not a trained economist or an expert in this stuff, I'm just some asshole who likes to hear himself talk, so please take everything I say with a grain of salt. I am not to be trusted. But I am still glad you found my comments enlightening and informative. --
Jayron
32 14:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Then we are two of that kind (I like to read newspapers, watch TV and read The Economist from time to time). I always try to take a grain of salt in all matters. Flamarande ( talk) 15:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, just read your comment. How do I clean up my article? Are my sources not reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodartistscopy ( talk • contribs) 14:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Kyle Mosher, artist -- 14:02, 15 June 2011 Jayron32 (talk | contribs) (6,776 bytes) (problems with article.) (undo)
I apologize for the previous talk that I started please disregard. I was wondering how I could make my article, Kyle Mosher, more reputable and save it from being deleted. I thought my sources were reliable and abundant. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Goodartistscopy ( talk) 14:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- The biggest problem is your clear conflict of interest: This article appears to be either about you, or someone you know personally. Given that, the way you can improve the article is to not edit it, and allow people who don't have a personal stake in promoting Kyle Mosher to clean it up. -- Jayron 32 14:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the help. I've submitted it for revision and editing help. Is there anything more I can do? Goodartistscopy ( talk) 15:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
[8] is not appropirate. The question is not asking for medical advice. The response may be inappropriate, but that doesn't justify the template:rd-removed, which is for questions that ask for medical advice, not answers that give it. I have brought this up on the talk page, and I urge you to reinstate the question. If there is no strong consensus to the contrary, I will reinstate the question in a few hours on my own. Buddy431 ( talk) 23:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you wish to reinstate the question, please do so. Remember, that in all things, I am always wrong. --
Jayron
32 23:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have restored it
[9].
Buddy431 (
talk) 00:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Good. That's the correct thing to do. --
Jayron
32 00:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- James 5:12.
Cuddlyable3 (
talk) 08:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Did I just take an oath? I don't remember taking an oath... Why would you quote a bible verse about oath-taking to me? --
Jayron
32 12:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- James 5:12 Above all, my brothers, do not swear--not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or you will be condemned. That verse applies to both use of gratuitous expletives and
backflipping on ref.desk questions about which pill to pop. Unless He moaned that He was wrong all the time, which would not have endeared Him to those it was meant to impress, would it?
Cuddlyable3 (
talk) 07:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid it doesn't apply to expletives. It appears you are unaware of the meaning of the word "swear" as it applies to oathtaking. And it also doesnt' refer to admitting ones mistakes (indeed, the bible in more places to count demands that you admit to your mistakes!) rather it is a statement on oathtaking and honesty; that if you commit to take an action, you should follow through with doing that action. So, if you are going to quote out-of-context bible verses at me, you could atleast find ones which are applicable and not misapply them to meet your own needs. That is also something which is frowned upon in the bible. -- Jayron 32 16:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- James 5:12 Above all, my brothers, do not swear--not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or you will be condemned. That verse applies to both use of gratuitous expletives and
backflipping on ref.desk questions about which pill to pop. Unless He moaned that He was wrong all the time, which would not have endeared Him to those it was meant to impress, would it?
Cuddlyable3 (
talk) 07:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Did I just take an oath? I don't remember taking an oath... Why would you quote a bible verse about oath-taking to me? --
Jayron
32 12:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- James 5:12.
Cuddlyable3 (
talk) 08:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Good. That's the correct thing to do. --
Jayron
32 00:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have restored it
[9].
Buddy431 (
talk) 00:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I emailed you because I needed a private sanity check, I'm tired of getting jumped on every time it's brought up publicly, I should have made that clearer in the e-mail, there are issues related to that which could be it's own AN/I thread, but there is little to do when you're faced off against multiple admins. I didn't suggest civility with the current issue, but 3RR.-- Crossmr ( talk) 22:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
You may have missed it in the lengthy discussion, but I wouldn't mind your thoughts on this: [10], someone brought this up on Delta's talk page, but the discussion suddenly changed directions directly thereafter. Delta once mentioned before that he was editing by diffs, rather than actually looking at the pages, as an explanation for why he continued to edit war even though there was no image on the page, he'd missed that someone had just linked the image rather than inserted the image into the page. I've somewhat gotten the impression that reason these mistakes are made over obvious mistakes could only be made if an experienced user wasn't really looking at the page. Another editor floated that theory on the talk page, and the discussion well... it suddenly stopped. [11]. It's quite possible that this issue is down to the page not being looked at as Delta has previously indicated that he's done.-- Crossmr ( talk) 15:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delta is frequently careless and aloof when dealing with image problems; his attitude is that image violations are a binary "yes/no" problem and requires only a binary response. He has made this quite clear on several occasions, and his attitude leads to silly mistakes like the one you note. On the most recent ANI discussion on perhaps lifting his existing restrictions, I have noted exactly that. At this point, I am entirely unsurprised by any rediculousness coming from Delta regarding misapplication of the NFCC policy. His definition of "looked at" and the rest of humankind's definiton appear to not match up all that well. Regarding the toolserver link, you might as well have sent me a copy of Mao's Little Red Book in the original Chinese, I can't read that any better than I can read the above link. I have absoltely no technical abilities whatsoever, so it doesn't seem to carry any meaning for me. --
Jayron
32 15:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that was just a link to the tool, what you really should look at is what Blake wrote. . Although it has also been brought to my attention that it is possible they do not read the image page It seems Blake has gotten information somewhere that Delta is in fact not looking at the pages themselves. I don't know what this information is, and I've asked him for it if possible. If this is true, and he's using some kind of tool, say like a javascript or something that is simply displaying something saying "This image doesn't point to this article" and he's reverting or removing images based on that, that seems like it would be violating his editing restrictions on editing with care. And while he's still pushing the buttons it's no better than editing with automated tools.-- Crossmr ( talk) 22:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Does Jennifer Gould the voice of Sailor Saturn in English dub of Sailor Moon have a fan-page with a fan-mail address? Thanks! Neptunekh2 ( talk) 02:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Sid Gillman.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 09:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hey J, we could use some advice here. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 20:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I saw you listed as a peer review volunteer and hoped you could take a look at this page for me. Thanks. Ultimahero ( talk) 21:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Listed at DRV; see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_June_21#Template:Cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 18:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
user:Red Act has removed a thread that you participated in [12]. It is being discussed on the reference desk talk page. Buddy431 ( talk) 03:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jay. Latest developments are here. If you have a moment, your ideas would be appreciated. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
See File:Jim Plunkett (cropped).jpg and File:Doug Williams (cropped).jpg. – ukexpat ( talk) 18:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
I know what you mean; I see the word "legend" or "legendary" attached to local DJs, traffic cops, TV weathercasters, and dogs who win their show two years in a row. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- It comes down to people being able to distinguish between "stuff that is important to me" and "stuff that is important". The venn diagram for that has a very narrow intersection, and yet people seem to believe that the first category is all that matters. -- Jayron 32 19:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
|
| Hi there! You are receiving this message because you are a participant of WikiProject Wikify. After the retirements of our first two executive coordinators, Mono and Guoguo12, WikiProject Wikify is undergoing a period of transition. We are currently holding a discussion to create a plan for the future, find volunteers to help fill our many administrative positions, collect any feedback about what has happened in the last six months, propose some new guidelines, and see if there are any creative ideas to increase participation. We appreciate your input! |
Sumsum2010· T· C 23:25, 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 23:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Do you have a template you use for that? It's impressive. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, it was spur of the moment. I do just about everything extemporaneously. -- Jayron 32 04:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't care that much that my comment at the Help desk wasn't included. It probably wasn't particlarly helpful overall. I just have this compulsion sometimes to fight what I perceive as unfairness. However, the edit history shows my edit having been made before you closed the discussion (times are the same, but my change precedes yours). Yet, it doesn't show you reverting my comment - it's just sort of gone in the ether. I'm just curious how that works. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Weird. I don't remember either an edit conflict, and I swear that I didn't remove any text; I just closed the existing discussion. Chalk it up to some weird glitch in the matrix or something. Regarding fighting unfairness... You absolutely should fight it. But the battle should be confined to the unfairness-fighting noticeboards, it wasn't the content of the discussion that led to my closing it. It was the location. -- Jayron 32 15:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jayron.
I see you closed down the Help desk request I made about interlanguage links before I could respond to Obsidian's remark that it was a content dispute. But I don't see it as a content dispute. Here is my response I couldn't add
- Thanks Obsidian. I've looked at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and left a note on my Talk page agreeing to a RFC. But I see this not so much as content dispute as a user problem, as I suggest above. The essential element of the user concerned's quibble is that interlanguage links are uncommon. I've already given examples of where I use them and if anyone looking in can give other example that would be useful. Bear in mind the user is attacking a Wikipedia facility (interlanguage links) with an agreed policy about their use. It's not just about content. He saying they shouldn't be used. That, for example, I should create stubs in the English wikipedia. But the subjects involved aren't notable in English letters and their stubs would be deleted on those grounds. FightingMac ( talk) 15:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
If you care about interlanguage links (as I do - I read Wikipedias in several languages and appreciate them), you might like to support me on my Talk page or put ne in touch with a like-minded administrator who will support me.
Thank you. FightingMac ( talk) 15:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- You might further like to look at this at Obsidi♠n Soul's Talk page and especially the section before where the user I complained of takes Obsidian Soul to task over Google searching (something that seeminly obsesses him) of the Help desk being allowed and where he is not very civil at all.
- I would appreciate some help from administrators with this user. FightingMac ( talk) 19:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- The discussion should not be happening at the help desk, which is why I closed it down. I couldn't give two shits about a) the technical aspects of interlanguage links or b) the personal conflict between yourself and Obsidian. I have no desire to participate in solving your problem, but the Help Desk is absolutely and completely NOT the place to carry on a personal war with another user. -- Jayron 32 19:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for this. You misunderstand. I have no personal conflict with Obsidian. I was pointing out that the user whose behaviour I was complaining about at the Help desk had gone on to flame Obsidian on his talk page. I wasn't engaging in a personal war with a user at the Help but asking for help with a user who had been demonstrably uncivil to me, as indeed he quickly went on to be with Obsidian attempting to mediate. I do care about interlanguage links. I see you don't. I do wonder that you intervened in the circumstances. Of course it would be disingenuous of me to thank you for your time and attention as I have just thanked Obsidian.
FightingMac (
talk) 21:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Look, I am very sympathetic to your concerns here, at least in general, as it regards to mediating conflict and to incivility. The discussion I closed down is an important discussion, and it should be happening in some form. Let me make that clear, it was not necessarily the discussion itself should be verboten anywhere. However the help desk was not the place to have it. Perhaps it started as an innocent request as to how to handle interlanguage links. However, since it instantly progressed into a personal discussion over the personal edits by individual persons, it really wasn't an appropriate thread to keep open at the help desk. If you believe that the specific discussion you were having needs to be had, please have it somewhere else at Wikipedia, because it really doesn't belong on the Help Desk in particular. Again, it was not the substance of the discussion, merely its location, that was the problem. -- Jayron 32 21:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Jayron. Thank you for your clarification. Part of the problem was that it became a dispute before I realised it was a dispute. That is to say I hadn't actually begun any attempt at resolution. An early query of the user's concerns wasn't answered and my restoring edits were not reverted nor attracted attention until suddenly yesterday the user was reverting edits and sending out edit-warring notices. So I'm going through the process of resolution in hindsight so to speak. The user wants to open an RFC and I've said I'm agreeable but I'm pretty sure it needs to go somewhere else than just a RFC. It's annoying because it's time-consuming and I'm not familiar with any of this but I don't see why I should be bullied like this by the user and I'm not prepared to let it go. Thank you for you explanation and time.
FightingMac (
talk) 21:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm with you man. I really am. It would be nice if we didn't need formal dispute resolution processes, which are insanely bureaucratic and obstruse. Still, some level of formality is needed because invariably things degrade into silly and stupid bickering, which rather than reduce tensions, only helps to increase them. The
WP:DR processes are usually designed to prevent fighting, and instead force people into an objective assessment of problems, with an eye on correcting them. If we didn't have some structure, we'd have chaos. Again, I want to live in a world where Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes aren't necessary. Wanting to live in that world doesn't mean that I do, however, so unfortunately, because people fight, we need ways to solve those fights. C'est la guerre. --
Jayron
32 22:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Cheers Jayron. Understood and agreed. I'm not sure how to proceed with my nuisance editor. I suppose I can live with my interlanguage links being interfered with like this but it's the way he comes back at you that bugs me. He followed me (I mean on my user name, not his because I was very careful not to mention it) to the Help desk yesterday and I find that creepy. He was there in minutes. FightingMac ( talk) 04:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm with you man. I really am. It would be nice if we didn't need formal dispute resolution processes, which are insanely bureaucratic and obstruse. Still, some level of formality is needed because invariably things degrade into silly and stupid bickering, which rather than reduce tensions, only helps to increase them. The
WP:DR processes are usually designed to prevent fighting, and instead force people into an objective assessment of problems, with an eye on correcting them. If we didn't have some structure, we'd have chaos. Again, I want to live in a world where Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes aren't necessary. Wanting to live in that world doesn't mean that I do, however, so unfortunately, because people fight, we need ways to solve those fights. C'est la guerre. --
Jayron
32 22:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for this. You misunderstand. I have no personal conflict with Obsidian. I was pointing out that the user whose behaviour I was complaining about at the Help desk had gone on to flame Obsidian on his talk page. I wasn't engaging in a personal war with a user at the Help but asking for help with a user who had been demonstrably uncivil to me, as indeed he quickly went on to be with Obsidian attempting to mediate. I do care about interlanguage links. I see you don't. I do wonder that you intervened in the circumstances. Of course it would be disingenuous of me to thank you for your time and attention as I have just thanked Obsidian.
FightingMac (
talk) 21:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Good close on that discussion. I swear, that comment on drama was about to bring about the most drama the help desk had ever seen. Ryan Vesey ( talk) 15:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Which discussion? Not my interlanguage links thread surely? Can't be that dramatic. Do you care about interlanguage links? Feel free to contribute! FightingMac ( talk) 15:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Jayron. I recently asked a question at the help desk about being able to edit protected pages without being an admin. After our conversation, I began looking into the process. Not being very acquainted with the process and not really knowing what to expect, I decided I'd draft a proposal in my user space before actually making the request. I currently have the template questions answered in my sandbox and would appreciate it if you might look over them and possibly give me some tips on what to include, exclude, reword, etc. I know that we haven't had any interaction at all besides that short conversation, but I was hoping to get a neutral perspective. Feel no obligation to comment, though. Thanks!-- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 20:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- It actually looks pretty good. I don't often get involved with RFA stuff, but 'I' would certainly support this, and my sense is that others would as well. Some general tips before you get started:
- Other users will ask you questions along the way. Answer these promptly, directly, and honestly as you have done here.
- People will oppose your nomination (it rarely happens that no one opposes, so expect it to happen). If they ask questions in their opposition vote, or indicate that they would like to see something (evidence of something or other) it may be permissible to respond to that. In general, however, it is best to not respond to oppose votes, as tempting as it may be. If there is a lot of back-and-forth arguements between you and the people that oppose your RFA it will usually be seen as unproductive, and may sink your RFA attempt. In other words, there will always be some nutjobs that oppose your nomination, resist the temptation to be a nutjob yourself, and just let them be.
- Be certain that you familiarize yourself with certain aspects of adminship, especially WP:NOBIGDEAL (i.e. you aren't held in higher regard that you are now an admin, however you WILL be under more scrutiny...) and the distinction between a WP:BLOCK and a WP:BAN, as those sorts of questions usually come up. Also, be clear on the appropriate use of WP:CSD and speedy deletion, (i.e. the distinction between indications of importantce and notability as in A7, and the very conservative application of CSD standards). You have made it clear that you don't often intend to use all of the admin tools, but you should be very clear on the proper use and application of them, as the question will come up.
- Hope that is helpful, and if you have any more questions, feel free to ask! --
Jayron
32 21:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the suggestions. I've just started the RfA at
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dudemanfellabra. I'd be grateful if you commented. Also, another question: would it be considered
WP:canvassing if I dropped a note at
WT:NRHP alerting the members of that project?--
Dudemanfellabra (
talk) 21:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. And the very fact that you asked will likely lead to some opposing.
Malleus
Fatuorum 22:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- What he said. In general, don't tell ANYONE that you are up for adminship. It will be generally seen as canvasing, and will result in people opposing you. --
Jayron
32 22:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's a bizarre convention, and does Wikipedia no credit, that its administrators have to be elected in semi-private.
Malleus
Fatuorum 22:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree it is weird. However, for some strange reason, everyone instantly opposes any RFA which is advertised anywhere. Think about it. What would your first response be should anyone advertise their own RFA? It would be to assume they were canvassing, and then instantly oppose on that grounds, regardless of how trustworthy the person who was applying would be in using the tools. I agree with you that its a shitty reason to oppose someone being granted access to the tools (the evidence of potential misuse should be the primary criterion) but C'est la vie. --
Jayron
32 22:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, that wouldn't be my first assumption. My first RfA was partly sunk because I notified two editors who'd asked to be notified of it, but of course the mud sticks; nobody bothers to look for the truth. I have to say though that I'm astonished that you're supporting this RfA. Extraordinary.
Malleus
Fatuorum 23:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I am? --
Jayron
32 23:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- You were, and obviously without doing even the simplest of checks.
Malleus
Fatuorum 23:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I were, I have, and now I am not. Is this sequence of events confusing to you? Oh, I forgot, nothing has ever happened which has caused your opinion of an event to change. I forget that your perspective on things is perfect the moment you have it, and that it isn't possible for your mind to be changed on anything, even if new information arises. That it happens to other people must seem quite alien and confusing to you. My bad. Carry on. --
Jayron
32 23:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Don't poke me Jayron32, you may not like the consequences.
Malleus
Fatuorum 23:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Aw, come on. Can't a guy have a little fun? --
Jayron
32 23:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Aren't you supposed to be a trusted and responsible person here? You supported someone at RfA who you obviously had no knowledge of whatsoever. How could you possibly believe that was a responsible thing to do?
Malleus
Fatuorum 23:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Goodness, Malleus, haven't you learned about me yet. You've been around here long enough to understand these things. I am nothing more than a carefully constructed fraud who exists solely to amass power for myself in the form of groomed minions of underling admins, and to then, at the appointed time, gather my secretly trained army of brainwashed drones to do my bidding and destroy Wikipedia from within. Jeesh, get with the program. I thought that the sheer number of my comments at RFA in the past year ( the astronomically high number of 1) coupled with the brazen overuse of admin tools I show in how often I block, protect, or delete things, should have made my intentions quite overt. My goodness, I am shocked that you haven't yet learned how destructive and dangerous I am towards Wikipedia, and how much I must be stopped! Please, quick, gather your band of underground Wikipedia superheros, its time for you to mount a defense before its too late. -- Jayron 32 23:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Aren't you supposed to be a trusted and responsible person here? You supported someone at RfA who you obviously had no knowledge of whatsoever. How could you possibly believe that was a responsible thing to do?
Malleus
Fatuorum 23:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Aw, come on. Can't a guy have a little fun? --
Jayron
32 23:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Don't poke me Jayron32, you may not like the consequences.
Malleus
Fatuorum 23:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I were, I have, and now I am not. Is this sequence of events confusing to you? Oh, I forgot, nothing has ever happened which has caused your opinion of an event to change. I forget that your perspective on things is perfect the moment you have it, and that it isn't possible for your mind to be changed on anything, even if new information arises. That it happens to other people must seem quite alien and confusing to you. My bad. Carry on. --
Jayron
32 23:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- You were, and obviously without doing even the simplest of checks.
Malleus
Fatuorum 23:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I am? --
Jayron
32 23:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, that wouldn't be my first assumption. My first RfA was partly sunk because I notified two editors who'd asked to be notified of it, but of course the mud sticks; nobody bothers to look for the truth. I have to say though that I'm astonished that you're supporting this RfA. Extraordinary.
Malleus
Fatuorum 23:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree it is weird. However, for some strange reason, everyone instantly opposes any RFA which is advertised anywhere. Think about it. What would your first response be should anyone advertise their own RFA? It would be to assume they were canvassing, and then instantly oppose on that grounds, regardless of how trustworthy the person who was applying would be in using the tools. I agree with you that its a shitty reason to oppose someone being granted access to the tools (the evidence of potential misuse should be the primary criterion) but C'est la vie. --
Jayron
32 22:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's a bizarre convention, and does Wikipedia no credit, that its administrators have to be elected in semi-private.
Malleus
Fatuorum 22:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- What he said. In general, don't tell ANYONE that you are up for adminship. It will be generally seen as canvasing, and will result in people opposing you. --
Jayron
32 22:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. And the very fact that you asked will likely lead to some opposing.
Malleus
Fatuorum 22:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the suggestions. I've just started the RfA at
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dudemanfellabra. I'd be grateful if you commented. Also, another question: would it be considered
WP:canvassing if I dropped a note at
WT:NRHP alerting the members of that project?--
Dudemanfellabra (
talk) 21:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
|
Clown of the month (so far) |
| Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC) |
Jayron, are you using a bad spell checker or word suggester? "Pickaninny" is a slang term, historically derogatory, for a small black child . . . not a minor point of interpretation in a ballgame.
Maybe you want to re-edit that response on RD/M before the race police start picketing both of us? DaHorsesMouth ( talk) 01:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I'm not offended, but you can bet your right nut that somebody will be :-).
- Jayron, I usually don't modify other peoples' posts, but I've taken the liberty of changing this to "penny-ante" (which is what I'm sure you meant) to avoid misunderstandings. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 02:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I suspect Jay-Ron had Jay-Z's "Lettin' these clowns nitpick at me / Paint me like a Pickaninny" playing tricks on his mind. What More Can I Say? . --- Sluzzelin talk 02:29, 4 July 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: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 00:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
A formal Request for Comment has now been started on this topic. Feel free to contribute; best, Ironholds ( talk) 20:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jayron, my last comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett was made concurrently with the closing administrator. When I posted the comment, I did not know that the discussion had closed. Thanks, Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but it also invited several comments in response to yours. There is no impending need to discuss the accuracy of Jacob Barnett's scientific statements on that page anymore. --
Jayron
32 14:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yup. No big deal. :-) Sławomir Biały ( talk)
Hi Jayron. You closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson in September 2010. If you are willing, would you close and summarize Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei? Certified on 2 March, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei is now a week past the normal closing date for RfCs. If you don't have the time or inclination to do it, I'll post a request on WP:AN or WP:ANI, though admins at those venues frequently do not pay attention to such requests (I've had to keep posting timestamps so the threads won't be archived, and if no one responds, I sometimes contact an admin on their talk page or do nothing). Cunard ( talk) 05:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- I may (or may not) close the request, but I would prefer if you posted in a public forum. I am uncomfortable responding to personal invitations to close requests like this, as it gives the impression of non-impartiality; i.e. if you know how a certain admin is likely to close an RFC, you might just seek them out directly. While that may not be the case, the fact that you ask me here, personally, to close the RFC gives the possibility of the appearence of bias, and I'd prefer to keep myself completely clean of even the hint of the chance of the possibility of such accusations. If you post this at WP:AN, someone else may respond, or I may, but at least doing so in a public forum reduces the appearence of bias. --
Jayron
32 05:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have had no involvement with
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei and have never interacted with
Tenmei (
talk ·
contribs). I am as uninvolved as you. When I ask a specific admin on their talk page to close a discussion, I usually have minimal or no involvement in the debate. If I had actively participated in the RfC, I would have posted a request at AN (and posted periodic timestamp updates to prevent archiving) and would not have directly contacted you. I agree with you that the close could be seen as tainted if a participant actively sought out a specific admin to close it.
Per your request, I have posted a request for closure at WP:AN#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei. Cunard ( talk) 05:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have had no involvement with
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei and have never interacted with
Tenmei (
talk ·
contribs). I am as uninvolved as you. When I ask a specific admin on their talk page to close a discussion, I usually have minimal or no involvement in the debate. If I had actively participated in the RfC, I would have posted a request at AN (and posted periodic timestamp updates to prevent archiving) and would not have directly contacted you. I agree with you that the close could be seen as tainted if a participant actively sought out a specific admin to close it.
thanks for the answer re symmetry and IR absorption. clear and informative. Gzuckier ( talk) 14:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
While we have never meet, I wanted to thank you for your attention to this small situation. My intentions with the above editor have (had) been good, in that or little feud started with me trying to direct Mayhem to some wiki policies that related to the edits we were at odds over. As you may have noticed, our interaction quickly spiraled into something else. I recuse myself from further involvement, but am glad that others are there to revert edits. Mayhem unfortunately continues to make bad edits, and bad faith edits. In this edit, you can see that Mayhem admits to having more than one account. I find this troubling primarily because he has singled me out and it seems likely that I have unknowingly encountered him before. To cut to the point, I think a final warning is in order. Thanks, Beach drifter ( talk) 00:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I look forward to your investigation into what I think are this editor's hollow claims. While he has edited his posts extensively I believe with some effort you will find we first came to odds when he made several revedits of my and other contributors edits with no contact or reason. His references to wiki policies came later, as a belated attempt to smoke screen the revedits and trouble tone of communication. I do not make Bad faith edits, and take exception with this comment. Yes I did HAVE (as in past tense) another account, this now belongs to my Ex, I mentioned this account to Drifter only to dispute his "your a noob and better listen to me" theme, otherwise it was none of his business or concern. In answer to his "troubling" concern, I have not encountered Drifter prior to this, nor singled him out. It might be a good time to remember just how many people are actually involved in our collective endeavor perhaps?. To cut to the point, any review of his activities during the last 5 months will show a warning and final warning are in order, ironic as that may be. MayhemMatador ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayhemmatador ( talk • contribs) 07:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
You removed my, and several other users, comments at
WP:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles
I have explained this at
Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump_(proposals)/Proposal_to_require_autoconfirmed_status_in_order_to_create_articles#Removal_of_comments_by_me_and_several_other_users
Could you please reinstate the comments you removed.
Arjayay (
talk) 15:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't. You need to contact User:Rd232 who did remove them. I am quite sure it was an accidental mistake, and he would be glad to restore them for you if you ask him. See [1] which is the edit where he did so... -- Jayron 32 15:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Thread moved from my talk page.
Cuddlyable3 (
talk) 20:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I would appreciate you removing all of the examples of my comments that you have collected at
User:Cuddlyable3/English. I would consider it an act of decency on your part to fulfil my request. I am not comfortable with you maintaining this "list of perceived wrongs" in your userspace, and I would prefer not to be part of it. Please delete any comments which originate from me at that page. Feel free to leave comments from other people at that page, but I would request that you leave me out of it. --
Jayron
32 19:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is a simple way to disqualify yourself from the list. Baseball Bugs caught on already [2]. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 20:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- I like having my grammar and spelling mistakes corrected, but that's just me and my upbringing, as my parents were sticklers for correct English usage. However, a lot of people consider it rude to do that. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Jayron; the guy's a troll. He wasn't always, but is now. It's sad - I dunno what happened to change him. He hides behind technicalities to keep his bullying going on as long as possible. I was bullied by him a while ago, and was shocked, as he'd been decent and helpful in the past. People tried to help by making mild comments like Bugs's above, but unfortunately, something stronger was needed. His list of grammatical errors is there to goad editors - it's quite clear, especially considering his recent history. I reckon the best thing to do is ignore. Adambrowne666 ( talk) 21:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I move this post to keep the thread together.
Cuddlyable3 (
talk) 08:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you understand me. I am not asking for ways to be disqualified from the list. I am asking that a) you remove my name, and all quotes from me, from that page and b) that you desist from adding future quotes from me, or any other mention of me, from that list. I am not here to play your little grammar game. Perhaps the friendliness of my last request caused ambiguity. I am now being unambiguous. Remove my name and all of my quotes, and make no further attempt to compile a list of my grammar errors. I don't care what you do or don't do with other people's grammar errors. I do not wish to be part of it. --
Jayron
32 20:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well I think I understand you. You wish to swear at me and ask for what you have placed in the ref.desk archives never to be quoted, as a special exception for yourself. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 08:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I move this post to keep the thread together.
Cuddlyable3 (
talk) 12:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
On wishes
No, in addition to what I asked directly, before, I now also have an additional wish. My additional wish is that you stop mischaracterizing what I say. Oh and one more wish: This conversation is over. --
Jayron
32 12:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Declaring oneself unquotable is that it forces others to interpret with
WP:AGF what one says with the inherent risk of being misunderstood. If you explain coherently what "mischaracterizing" you believe you have suffered at my hands, my contrition will be almost unbearable. Distracting behaviour such as
swearing, sarcasm, frivolous abuse of the apostrophe punctuation symbol which is to be used one at a time and never 12 at a time, and your
strange appeal to decency that appears to abandon other editors to the citing that you yourself find uncomfortable (ask WHY?), together suggest that your communication skills put unusual demands on the luckless reader. BTW for quantity of effort your contributions at the ref.desks are impressive and rightly appreciated, but heavy-handed sarcasm is not your forté.
Cuddlyable3 (
talk) 12:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Since many people consider pointing out their grammar errors to be rude, i.e. uncivil, perhaps you should confine such corrections to those who have explicitly given you permission to do so. (So far, that would be just me.) ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
If you're ever passing by this way, I'll treat you to a nice bit of rump. DuncanHill ( talk) 22:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm flattered, but I tend to prefer my beef from heifers... Still, I genuinely appreciate the offer. I always enjoy a nice steak, even if we can't agree on the proper cut, I take it as a compliment to be offered the opportunity to share a steak with someone... -- Jayron 32 01:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- I received it. Thanks so much! ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 16:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC))
As you are a sports guru, you may want to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball records considered unbreakable. In fact, I think this should be mentioned at the project page if it isn't already. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jayron32. You gave Wdk789 a very good answer to his question about Lugol’s iodine, but he then deleted it. It might interest you to know a little more about Wdk789.
The user account Wdk789 was opened on 25 February 2011. Two days earlier, 23 February, two other accounts were blocked indefinitely on the grounds of being sockpuppets of a blocked user called Kj650. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Kj650/Archive.
The behaviour of Wdk789 is identical to that of Kj650 and his sockpuppets. This was discussed at User talk:WikiDao#User:Kj650. I raised the most recent sockpuppet investigation on Kj650. Wikidao looked like he was prepared to do another one, but I notice Wikidao is on a Wikibreak at present. Feel free to raise a sockpuppet investigation of Wdk789 if you wish. Dolphin ( t) 03:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- New checkuser request filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kj650. Thanks for the headsup. -- Jayron 32 03:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.— Verapar ( talk) 20:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I got your email. If you are having problems with the Michael Jackson page, you're best option is to ask for outside help through one of the things listed at WP:DR. Good luck! -- Jayron 32 00:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, laddie, but you are going to have to: 1) not appear distracted by concerns over the article title and content 2) explain more thoroughly, and with more reasons, why you believe the outcome of the "discussion" was keep. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 04:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, the keep arguements were stronger, more numerous and had more basis in policy and guidelines. In addition to that, there was less support for the delete side, with less policy-based rationale for deleting, versus fixing problems with neutrality via normal editing processes. Most of the delete votes raised concerns that could be fixed by means other than deleting. -- Jayron 32 04:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
why was the page deleted? me and another person worked hard as hell to keep a well-known artist that has played on big venues such as " Epicenter" and was the frontman of " Hollywood Undead" this artist has 3 pages for his released albums and has released 26 songs total, and 10 that are soon to be released in his new Album. Please explain the conclusion of the discussion and why the admins decided to close the page that was strong, we were working on getting refrences. Snyth 05:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snyth ( talk • contribs)
- The page was redirected (not deleted) based on the preponderance of the comments made during the discussion. The majority of people who commented, and the substance of their comments (based on Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and general practices and precedents) thought that the best course of action was to redirect the article in question to the article of the group he belongs to. If you do not think that I correctly interpreted the comments that others made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aron "Deuce" Erlichman, you are free to ask for a review of my actions at Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- Jayron 32 05:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
[3] That is probably the nicest thing anyone has said about me onwiki in the past two years. Thanks for having faith in me. Risker ( talk) 23:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. I doubt you could have gotten to the place you have at Wikipedia if you weren't trustworthy. There's enough suspicion at Wikipedia that the fact that anyone could get anything done with respect to community discipline means that I am generally quite respectful of people that can put together enough general support to hold positions of responsibility. I know I never could... -- Jayron 32 23:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Tried but failed. User:AnemoneProjectors believes that as the images are different and differently named that the deletion discussion does not apply, and undeleted at least one. Also they reversed my replacement of a non-free image with a free one in a character article. They apparently also believe that no image is better than one of the actor. It's too tiresome to deal with those who act this way - Peripitus (Talk)
- Whatever. I am washing my hands of this entire matter as well. I expect that, at some point in the future, someone completely independent of you or I will come to the rightful conclusion that these images do not meet WP:NFCC and should go. Its only a matter of time. I'm in no rush to be right here... -- Jayron 32 23:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
In agreement, and with your succinct edit summary. Peripitus (Talk) 08:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Message added 06:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank you for blocking me. Retrospectively, I can see that I became too involved in an arbitrary editing task and I think I needed to be temporarily blocked to discourage me from that kind of excessively aggressive editing. Fieldday-sunday ( talk) 23:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Your block of 174.45.18.232 ( talk · contribs)
The block and log shows an expiry time of 2 weeks, the talkpage states "blocked indefinitely".
Was the talkpage notice supposed to say two weeks also? Starfallen 17:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- IP addresses should not normally be blocked indefinitely. The person behind it, however, is forbidden from using Wikipedia while the legal threat is active. If he should resume editing under a new IP address, he will be instantly blocked as an extension of the current block. The language of the block notice is intended to be directed at the person, not the IP address per se. --
Jayron
32 17:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I understand, thank you for the explanation! Starfallen 20:41, 26 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 19:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
| Oh, dear. Did I make it seem like I was still interested? Terribly sorry. How embarassing for all of us |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
For months I have been asking for an honest, uninvolved, objective admin. No offense meant, but I do not think you qualify, we’ve met before. I do think that you may be able to take your prejudice into account, and compensate. Let’s try. Many tell me what to do to get unblocked. The very word “unblocked” indicates you don’t get it. Repeating myself? Dead horse? You people speak so many languages, but you cannot follow my poor Junior High School English. I am not talking about being unblocked (or unbanned, whatever that is). I wish I could get Harper Lee to write to you. I emailed Roger Davis, who I admire. He is dealing with similar issues, but on a much higher plane. He was honest, but I must look like an ant to him, so he passed me off to Arbcom. Unfortunately Arbcom is you, the admin culture, who I cannot communicate with. I would like desperately to speak privately. I am not the admin culture, and feel at a disadvantage. I don’t want to use names publically. I cannot notify all the participants, and really do not want to compromise anyone who may support me, I am clearly a pariah. Besides, someone like bugs always shows up. What is the problem with email? My only interest was in one article. I did not feel qualified to edit, so I stayed in the discussion, trying to support effective editors (which I did, did you see where Kierzek and Farawayman fixed it up?). This has often been used against me, but I feel it is a sign of responsibility, not bad faith. A.G.F. Every member of my family is absolutely good faith. My family are teachers, librarians, musicians, donors, volunteers, assistants, fosters, and adopters. We all try to inform, educate, and assist every day. My senior daughter just earned her Masters on the effects on her first grade slum school Rainbow Coalition students of their classroom wiki. Did you catch that? Every day she teaches poor immigrants and outcasts how to read and write English with a wiki. We are in the absolute front line in the battle against ignorance. And instead of A.G.F., I get quack quack quack. I took a shot with you because you time blocked me, instead of indef, and you sounded good. But it brings up a point. Why was I unblocked to start with? Did someone do something, or is this a fluke that I can get through? Shouldn’t the censors silence me soon? How long will this stay up? Thanx. johndearhart@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.236.128 ( talk) 16:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Jayron32, I do not think you really answered what Wm5200 asked. There seems to be a “failure to communicate” somewhere. What conspiracy has he made up? “Admin culture”? Do you deny that an “Admin culture” exists at Wikipedia? Whatever happened at ANI, he did not bring it up, you did. He seemed to trust you. What makes you say “If you don't wish to accept responsibility for your actions”? What has he denied? What makes you think he wants to “make a commitment to working collegially with others”? He appears to be trying to point out a problem, not fix one. Why will nobody talk candidly with him? You are aware that he can’t reply, correct? I am involved. I have known John for a long time, at one time I worked with him for over fifteen years. He’s a strange person who openly calls himself “insane” and most of us thought he was a jerk, but he is not evil. Are you sure you understand what he is saying? 173.15.50.21 ( talk) 20:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I would like to apologize for any misunderstanding. I only posted here because I took what you said at face value, and trusted you. I am sorry that I seem to have offended you. I A.G.F.ed you. I didn’t go back to ANI, I just knew I had seen your name before. I tried to be respectful. I do not see how you people can not perceive a communication problem. I have tried to be polite, in return I feel I have been abused, insulted, and called a homophobe (not by you personally, but this “outing” crap really pisses me off). Isn’t this A.G.F. stuff supposed to work both ways? How did I “claimed I was somehow not impartial”? I said “we’ve met before. I do think that you may be able to take your prejudice into account, and compensate. Let’s try.” Sounds “impartial” to me, that is how it was intended. Why did you say “I've never interacted with him in my life”? Didn’t you just post “I responded to your request for a review at ANI. I provided that review”? Does “interacted” imply personal contact, or did you mean “other than at ANI”? Where did I “claimed that he wasn't getting a fair shake”? I said “the admin culture, who I cannot communicate with.” Again, do you deny “the admin culture” exists? Do you think I can communicate with it effectively? A word about “admin culture”. I have seen this phrase used by some pretty deep people, including Roger, I think. I was under the impression that it was a recognized, legitimate assumption. If you take offense, sorry, none was intended. But do you really maintain that it doesn’t exist? Am I using the term in an inappropriate manner? Or are we not effectively communicating? Why did you say “don't own their actions, and instead blame their situation on forces beyond their control.” What have I denied? Who personally have I blamed? Do you deny that there are “forces beyond” my “control”? Why did you say “If he wishes to edit Wikipedia”? I’ve tried to made it pretty clear I don’t want to edit. Why did you say “he can contact ArbCom or Roger Davies”? I misspelled “Roger Davies”, otherwise I did, and explained the problem. Was the Pilate-ish “washing my hands” meant to refer to a Messianic component, or was it just an unconscious use of a common phrase? I think it is clear that we are not communicating effectively. I have begged for email from anyone, so we can work out our misunderstandings. Will someone please at least tell me if email is considered outside of the rules? This paragraph probably applies to Favonian. Why can I post some times, and not others? And what is the reasoning behind “31 hours”? Why not indef? You have to admit that “31” is an odd choice of numbers, right? Nobody disputes indef, do they? Has something changed, or is this just some odd fluke? Jayron, this is your talk page. I’m sorry if you feel I abused it. Feel free to close any way you want, I won’t be back unless invited. Thanx. johndearhart@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.236.128 ( talk) 23:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC) |
Hello there, Jayron32! Do you have time for a peer review of Eveline Hańska, wife of French novelist Honoré de Balzac? Thanks in advance! Scartol • Tok 17:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thanks. fyi, check me out, if you've not. also, there are more needful places for your comment. Sincerely, Barong 15:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I've known who you are the whole time. I read the papers... -- Jayron 32 15:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
When I first asked questions here I thought they would be answered in good faith. When I witnessed the mocking and beating around the bush that went on on a regular basis I began to feel that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, but I guess not if you want questions answered. But I already wasn't getting that so then I figued if you cant join them beat them. Why is it soooo difficult to get a straight answer around here? everything else has some type of protocol, why isnt there a protocol to answering questions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.254.154 ( talk) 05:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Count Iblis answered your question, and you yelled at him. He was never rude to you, he gave you links and references and equations and all sorts of good stuff, and in return for his voluntary work at answering your question, you shouted at him in ALL CAPS and acted all pissy. Its no wonder people don't want to volunteer to help you find answers, if when answers are given to you in good faith, your response is to do that. -- Jayron 32 05:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I just logged into an unsecure network while in my car waiting to pick someone up, and I can guarantee that the network that this IP address is being assigned to is nowhere near (in location to) the mentioned owning Educational Institution. Can we get a double check that this ownership claim is, in fact, accurate? – AJL talk 05:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Here is the WHOIS data:
[4] and here is the GEOLOCATE data:
[5] FWIW, it geolocates to Boise. --
Jayron
32 05:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just pulled that up. I didn't have time when I first was writing the message to do that. But the Whois and the Geolocate both confirm it is not a College of Western Idaho registered address, right? If so, can we remove that template and/or change it to something else? –
AJL
talk 05:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. Since it Geolocates to Boise, which is nearby, it COULD be used by the College. My IP address (I just checked it) geolocates to a different city than my house it in. (It actually geolocates to a suburb, whereas I live in the main city). So I wouldn't take that to mean anything. Also, many colleges likely purchase their IT services from commercial firms rather than run their own services themselves, this could just be an IP address used by the College which it purchases from the firm of record, and thus doesn't match the WHOIS information. This is more likely considering that this is a smallish community college, and not a major university. Again, this doesn't prove anything one way or the other, except that there's no evidence this is NOT the college in question, but some evidence that it COULD BE. --
Jayron
32 05:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- It was definitely not a CWI network that I logged into, it was a residential network, with very low/non-existent security. So how does one get onto an IP that's not theirs, aside from IP-Spoofing (if that is such a thing)?
- Also, I wouldn't exactly say it's "a smallish community college", it's actually the
second largest in Idaho. –
AJL
talk 05:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Being the second largest community college in Idaho doesn't seem to me to get it out of the "smallish" categorization, if you catch my drift. But, lets just suppose that their IP services are provided by a company that also provides services to the neighborhood in question, and which shuffles addresses regularly using some sort of DHCP system; so that the IP address used at the college yesterday is used by some dude in your neighborhood today, and used by a different customer of the ISP in question tomorrow. I'm not all that technically minded, but I do know that there are a multitude of ways that IP addresses are handled by ISPs, and its quite possible that the same IP address could show up under different uses at different times. -- Jayron 32 05:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. Since it Geolocates to Boise, which is nearby, it COULD be used by the College. My IP address (I just checked it) geolocates to a different city than my house it in. (It actually geolocates to a suburb, whereas I live in the main city). So I wouldn't take that to mean anything. Also, many colleges likely purchase their IT services from commercial firms rather than run their own services themselves, this could just be an IP address used by the College which it purchases from the firm of record, and thus doesn't match the WHOIS information. This is more likely considering that this is a smallish community college, and not a major university. Again, this doesn't prove anything one way or the other, except that there's no evidence this is NOT the college in question, but some evidence that it COULD BE. --
Jayron
32 05:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just pulled that up. I didn't have time when I first was writing the message to do that. But the Whois and the Geolocate both confirm it is not a College of Western Idaho registered address, right? If so, can we remove that template and/or change it to something else? –
AJL
talk 05:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Moved from
WP:ANI#207.170.247.22- Ok, both valid points. You may be right about the DHCP shuffling, and I was thinking it may have been a possibility, but on the off-chance that the school registration has expired, do we really do anything as a result? –
AJL
talk 06:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly, I'm not all that good with the technical stuff really. If you really want an answer, my suggestion would be to head over to WP:OP, and find one of the regulars that work there; they tend to be better at this stuff. Just ask your question of one of them on their user talk page, and reference this conversation, and see if one of them can answer you as to whether or not the tag on that IP address should be changed or not to reflect the WHOIS and GEOLOCATE data. If anyone could answer you, one of them could. -- Jayron 32 00:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, both valid points. You may be right about the DHCP shuffling, and I was thinking it may have been a possibility, but on the off-chance that the school registration has expired, do we really do anything as a result? –
AJL
talk 06:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, at Sarah777's block log I didn't get the block log version of an edit conflict, now it looks like I'm correcting your language when I actually agree with it. And I don't really want to amend the log again if there's no benefit. Shall we just leave it, or would you like me to switch back to yours? -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 13:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I can see why you've blocked him, but he's currently contributing at his user talk regarding an ongoing ANI discussion. -- Dweller ( talk) 14:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have been keeping on top of his talk page and the ANI discussion in question. You will note that I left a note regarding such on his talk page, offering him a concrete and reasonable method by which he can return to editing Wikipedia again. I have not said anything further at either the ANI discussion or his user talk page because there is nothing to add besides which I have said, and which others, especially JamesBWatson, have said. When Light current does something worth commenting on, I will be the first to say something. So far, since my last comments, I have not seen anything he has done that has been worth my comment. -- Jayron 32 20:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I have been an editor on this encyclopaedic website since 2009, and your rage that you just showed on my talk page is rude, undiplomatic, and unforgivable. I have reported your behaviour to Wikipedia, Wikicommons, Your Service Provider and Jimbo Wales. Please GROW UP. -- KontestLead ( talk) 01:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
|
Hello Wikifiers! Sorry this Newsletter is late, It should have gone out a month ago. I've been very busy in real life and didn't have time to get over to the newsletter. In this edition of the Newsletter, we have an editorial written by our new executive coordinator; Guoguo12. Guoguo12 has succeeded Mono due to an indefinite wikibreak. We also have the results of the February and March Mini drives. Happy Wikifying, Sumsum2010, the assistant coordinator of WikiProject Wikify | |||
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 01:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC).
| |||||
| Volume 4, Issue 2 • Spring 2011 • About the Newsletter | |||||
|
|
Project reports for
| |||
| Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS | |||||
- — Rschen7754bot ( talk) 02:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
|
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| Thank you very much for your very detailed, very easy to understand response to my question. Endlessdan ( talk) 15:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC) |
The Buffy wika doesn't list specific ages. Do you know the answer to my questions? Neptunekh2 ( talk) 13:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- If the Buffy wikia doesn't have the information, then the information quite likely doesn't exist. Being a fictional show, the characters don't really exist as real people, and so don't have "birthdays" and specific "ages" unless the show's writers have thought to specifically write about them. If the writers did not create a birthday or an age for a character, then your question is unanswerable. -- Jayron 32 19:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Update, another one, diff. -- Cirt ( talk) 05:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not interested anymore. Watching this is kinda like watching a car accident in slow motion. You know this guy is heading off a cliff, but there's not much left to do for him... -- Jayron 32 05:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you salt this title? The version you just deleted was the second incarnation, and the subject is the pet project of SPA accounts. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 07:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Done --
Jayron
32 13:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 15:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I found the video of him doing the line on YouTube a little after posting that comment but didn't go back to correct it. I remember him now. It's not hard to confuse the two. Dismas| (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
As an editor who was involved with the recent ELNO discussion, "Spam links becoming standard practice," [6] I am inviting you to comment on the proposal to rework the definition of "Official Link". [7]
Regards, ELNO Checking ( talk) 17:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The Boerebetrokke Groep will lodge a complaint about you and your anti-Boer attitude. Apartheid was not all that bad. Maybe we can teach you. -- BoerbetrokkeGroep ( talk) 00:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Following a vote, We have agreed to BAN you from ever joining the Boerbetrokke Groep, as you do not share our values. Your block expires on 2014, 20 years after Apartheid finished in South Africa and the country went to the dogs. Thank You. -- BoerbetrokkeGroep ( talk) 00:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Pobrecito. Killiondude ( talk) 20:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Good job on the pic. I found a Flickr user who uploaded some shots of Lauren's "homecoming" but couldn't find one for Scotty's. Killiondude ( talk) 20:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
|
| Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's
June Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by about 900 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive
awards for their contributions! If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks! Note: The drive starts June 1, but you can still
sign up! |
Sumsum2010· T· C 04:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
FYI: There is an AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Directional Michigan (3rd nomination) you may be interested in. You participated in previous discussions on the topic, so I am sending you a notification.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:37, 26 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 23:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
You're the only administrator I can think of right now, so I have a favor to ask of you. Can I have the text from the deleted article Space Station 13? I think this game might be notable now, but I can't start the article from scratch. Would it be possible to userfy it to User:Bluefist/Space_Station_13 or something of the like? Bluefist talk 03:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Given that your view was the most supported in the proposal to require autoconfirmed status for article creation, I figured you might be interested in the draft of the trial. After it got moved without a redirect from Kudpung's userspace it has pretty well ground to a halt, and if we want to move forward we need more voices. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 00:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not much of a details kinda guy. I'm a big idea kinda guy. The particulars of how many days the trial runs for, how to calculate the statistics, how long to turn it off for, etc, isn't much interesting to me. Figure something out and go do it, is what I think. Give me a final proposal for a draft, something I can say "yeah" or "nay" to, and I'll vote... --
Jayron
32 00:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- The rough draft of Kudpung's proposal, which is the one I've supported, is the one at the top; there are a couple of others as well. I'll let you know when we have a finalized version of it.
The Blade of the Northern Lights (
話して下さい) 01:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think we've made some progress. Please take a look at this thread and let us know what you think. Thanks. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 07:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- The rough draft of Kudpung's proposal, which is the one I've supported, is the one at the top; there are a couple of others as well. I'll let you know when we have a finalized version of it.
The Blade of the Northern Lights (
話して下さい) 01:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Hy there, I want to thank you for giving me your opinion upon the "Avoiding restructuring of Greek debt-issue". I have some honest doubts about some details, but I appreciate hearing from other (reasonable) points of view. I also gave my basic understanding upon the whole issue and I would be grateful if you gave me your honest opinion about my summary ("good, bad, starts with a mistake, you're wrong, notice that if..."). You may wish to reply in my talkpage instead (actually I think that you should give your opinion in the reference desk for all of us - I'm just concerned that somebody begins shouting: "The reference desk is not the proper place for debates!"). I will certainly understand if you're not interested in the matter. Flamarande ( talk) 14:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC) I'm just interested in economics and politics and I know that hearing the honest opinion of other (reasonable) ppl is the way to a better understanding.
- Thanks. Understand I am not a trained economist or an expert in this stuff, I'm just some asshole who likes to hear himself talk, so please take everything I say with a grain of salt. I am not to be trusted. But I am still glad you found my comments enlightening and informative. --
Jayron
32 14:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Then we are two of that kind (I like to read newspapers, watch TV and read The Economist from time to time). I always try to take a grain of salt in all matters. Flamarande ( talk) 15:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, just read your comment. How do I clean up my article? Are my sources not reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodartistscopy ( talk • contribs) 14:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Kyle Mosher, artist -- 14:02, 15 June 2011 Jayron32 (talk | contribs) (6,776 bytes) (problems with article.) (undo)
I apologize for the previous talk that I started please disregard. I was wondering how I could make my article, Kyle Mosher, more reputable and save it from being deleted. I thought my sources were reliable and abundant. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Goodartistscopy ( talk) 14:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- The biggest problem is your clear conflict of interest: This article appears to be either about you, or someone you know personally. Given that, the way you can improve the article is to not edit it, and allow people who don't have a personal stake in promoting Kyle Mosher to clean it up. -- Jayron 32 14:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the help. I've submitted it for revision and editing help. Is there anything more I can do? Goodartistscopy ( talk) 15:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
[8] is not appropirate. The question is not asking for medical advice. The response may be inappropriate, but that doesn't justify the template:rd-removed, which is for questions that ask for medical advice, not answers that give it. I have brought this up on the talk page, and I urge you to reinstate the question. If there is no strong consensus to the contrary, I will reinstate the question in a few hours on my own. Buddy431 ( talk) 23:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you wish to reinstate the question, please do so. Remember, that in all things, I am always wrong. --
Jayron
32 23:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have restored it
[9].
Buddy431 (
talk) 00:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Good. That's the correct thing to do. --
Jayron
32 00:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- James 5:12.
Cuddlyable3 (
talk) 08:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Did I just take an oath? I don't remember taking an oath... Why would you quote a bible verse about oath-taking to me? --
Jayron
32 12:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- James 5:12 Above all, my brothers, do not swear--not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or you will be condemned. That verse applies to both use of gratuitous expletives and
backflipping on ref.desk questions about which pill to pop. Unless He moaned that He was wrong all the time, which would not have endeared Him to those it was meant to impress, would it?
Cuddlyable3 (
talk) 07:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid it doesn't apply to expletives. It appears you are unaware of the meaning of the word "swear" as it applies to oathtaking. And it also doesnt' refer to admitting ones mistakes (indeed, the bible in more places to count demands that you admit to your mistakes!) rather it is a statement on oathtaking and honesty; that if you commit to take an action, you should follow through with doing that action. So, if you are going to quote out-of-context bible verses at me, you could atleast find ones which are applicable and not misapply them to meet your own needs. That is also something which is frowned upon in the bible. -- Jayron 32 16:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- James 5:12 Above all, my brothers, do not swear--not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or you will be condemned. That verse applies to both use of gratuitous expletives and
backflipping on ref.desk questions about which pill to pop. Unless He moaned that He was wrong all the time, which would not have endeared Him to those it was meant to impress, would it?
Cuddlyable3 (
talk) 07:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Did I just take an oath? I don't remember taking an oath... Why would you quote a bible verse about oath-taking to me? --
Jayron
32 12:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- James 5:12.
Cuddlyable3 (
talk) 08:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Good. That's the correct thing to do. --
Jayron
32 00:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have restored it
[9].
Buddy431 (
talk) 00:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I emailed you because I needed a private sanity check, I'm tired of getting jumped on every time it's brought up publicly, I should have made that clearer in the e-mail, there are issues related to that which could be it's own AN/I thread, but there is little to do when you're faced off against multiple admins. I didn't suggest civility with the current issue, but 3RR.-- Crossmr ( talk) 22:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
You may have missed it in the lengthy discussion, but I wouldn't mind your thoughts on this: [10], someone brought this up on Delta's talk page, but the discussion suddenly changed directions directly thereafter. Delta once mentioned before that he was editing by diffs, rather than actually looking at the pages, as an explanation for why he continued to edit war even though there was no image on the page, he'd missed that someone had just linked the image rather than inserted the image into the page. I've somewhat gotten the impression that reason these mistakes are made over obvious mistakes could only be made if an experienced user wasn't really looking at the page. Another editor floated that theory on the talk page, and the discussion well... it suddenly stopped. [11]. It's quite possible that this issue is down to the page not being looked at as Delta has previously indicated that he's done.-- Crossmr ( talk) 15:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delta is frequently careless and aloof when dealing with image problems; his attitude is that image violations are a binary "yes/no" problem and requires only a binary response. He has made this quite clear on several occasions, and his attitude leads to silly mistakes like the one you note. On the most recent ANI discussion on perhaps lifting his existing restrictions, I have noted exactly that. At this point, I am entirely unsurprised by any rediculousness coming from Delta regarding misapplication of the NFCC policy. His definition of "looked at" and the rest of humankind's definiton appear to not match up all that well. Regarding the toolserver link, you might as well have sent me a copy of Mao's Little Red Book in the original Chinese, I can't read that any better than I can read the above link. I have absoltely no technical abilities whatsoever, so it doesn't seem to carry any meaning for me. --
Jayron
32 15:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that was just a link to the tool, what you really should look at is what Blake wrote. . Although it has also been brought to my attention that it is possible they do not read the image page It seems Blake has gotten information somewhere that Delta is in fact not looking at the pages themselves. I don't know what this information is, and I've asked him for it if possible. If this is true, and he's using some kind of tool, say like a javascript or something that is simply displaying something saying "This image doesn't point to this article" and he's reverting or removing images based on that, that seems like it would be violating his editing restrictions on editing with care. And while he's still pushing the buttons it's no better than editing with automated tools.-- Crossmr ( talk) 22:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Does Jennifer Gould the voice of Sailor Saturn in English dub of Sailor Moon have a fan-page with a fan-mail address? Thanks! Neptunekh2 ( talk) 02:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Sid Gillman.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 09:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hey J, we could use some advice here. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 20:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I saw you listed as a peer review volunteer and hoped you could take a look at this page for me. Thanks. Ultimahero ( talk) 21:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Listed at DRV; see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_June_21#Template:Cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 18:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
user:Red Act has removed a thread that you participated in [12]. It is being discussed on the reference desk talk page. Buddy431 ( talk) 03:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jay. Latest developments are here. If you have a moment, your ideas would be appreciated. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
See File:Jim Plunkett (cropped).jpg and File:Doug Williams (cropped).jpg. – ukexpat ( talk) 18:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I know what you mean; I see the word "legend" or "legendary" attached to local DJs, traffic cops, TV weathercasters, and dogs who win their show two years in a row. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- It comes down to people being able to distinguish between "stuff that is important to me" and "stuff that is important". The venn diagram for that has a very narrow intersection, and yet people seem to believe that the first category is all that matters. -- Jayron 32 19:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
|
| Hi there! You are receiving this message because you are a participant of WikiProject Wikify. After the retirements of our first two executive coordinators, Mono and Guoguo12, WikiProject Wikify is undergoing a period of transition. We are currently holding a discussion to create a plan for the future, find volunteers to help fill our many administrative positions, collect any feedback about what has happened in the last six months, propose some new guidelines, and see if there are any creative ideas to increase participation. We appreciate your input! |
Sumsum2010· T· C 23:25, 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 23:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Do you have a template you use for that? It's impressive. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, it was spur of the moment. I do just about everything extemporaneously. -- Jayron 32 04:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't care that much that my comment at the Help desk wasn't included. It probably wasn't particlarly helpful overall. I just have this compulsion sometimes to fight what I perceive as unfairness. However, the edit history shows my edit having been made before you closed the discussion (times are the same, but my change precedes yours). Yet, it doesn't show you reverting my comment - it's just sort of gone in the ether. I'm just curious how that works. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Weird. I don't remember either an edit conflict, and I swear that I didn't remove any text; I just closed the existing discussion. Chalk it up to some weird glitch in the matrix or something. Regarding fighting unfairness... You absolutely should fight it. But the battle should be confined to the unfairness-fighting noticeboards, it wasn't the content of the discussion that led to my closing it. It was the location. -- Jayron 32 15:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jayron.
I see you closed down the Help desk request I made about interlanguage links before I could respond to Obsidian's remark that it was a content dispute. But I don't see it as a content dispute. Here is my response I couldn't add
- Thanks Obsidian. I've looked at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and left a note on my Talk page agreeing to a RFC. But I see this not so much as content dispute as a user problem, as I suggest above. The essential element of the user concerned's quibble is that interlanguage links are uncommon. I've already given examples of where I use them and if anyone looking in can give other example that would be useful. Bear in mind the user is attacking a Wikipedia facility (interlanguage links) with an agreed policy about their use. It's not just about content. He saying they shouldn't be used. That, for example, I should create stubs in the English wikipedia. But the subjects involved aren't notable in English letters and their stubs would be deleted on those grounds. FightingMac ( talk) 15:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
If you care about interlanguage links (as I do - I read Wikipedias in several languages and appreciate them), you might like to support me on my Talk page or put ne in touch with a like-minded administrator who will support me.
Thank you. FightingMac ( talk) 15:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- You might further like to look at this at Obsidi♠n Soul's Talk page and especially the section before where the user I complained of takes Obsidian Soul to task over Google searching (something that seeminly obsesses him) of the Help desk being allowed and where he is not very civil at all.
- I would appreciate some help from administrators with this user. FightingMac ( talk) 19:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- The discussion should not be happening at the help desk, which is why I closed it down. I couldn't give two shits about a) the technical aspects of interlanguage links or b) the personal conflict between yourself and Obsidian. I have no desire to participate in solving your problem, but the Help Desk is absolutely and completely NOT the place to carry on a personal war with another user. -- Jayron 32 19:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for this. You misunderstand. I have no personal conflict with Obsidian. I was pointing out that the user whose behaviour I was complaining about at the Help desk had gone on to flame Obsidian on his talk page. I wasn't engaging in a personal war with a user at the Help but asking for help with a user who had been demonstrably uncivil to me, as indeed he quickly went on to be with Obsidian attempting to mediate. I do care about interlanguage links. I see you don't. I do wonder that you intervened in the circumstances. Of course it would be disingenuous of me to thank you for your time and attention as I have just thanked Obsidian.
FightingMac (
talk) 21:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Look, I am very sympathetic to your concerns here, at least in general, as it regards to mediating conflict and to incivility. The discussion I closed down is an important discussion, and it should be happening in some form. Let me make that clear, it was not necessarily the discussion itself should be verboten anywhere. However the help desk was not the place to have it. Perhaps it started as an innocent request as to how to handle interlanguage links. However, since it instantly progressed into a personal discussion over the personal edits by individual persons, it really wasn't an appropriate thread to keep open at the help desk. If you believe that the specific discussion you were having needs to be had, please have it somewhere else at Wikipedia, because it really doesn't belong on the Help Desk in particular. Again, it was not the substance of the discussion, merely its location, that was the problem. -- Jayron 32 21:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Jayron. Thank you for your clarification. Part of the problem was that it became a dispute before I realised it was a dispute. That is to say I hadn't actually begun any attempt at resolution. An early query of the user's concerns wasn't answered and my restoring edits were not reverted nor attracted attention until suddenly yesterday the user was reverting edits and sending out edit-warring notices. So I'm going through the process of resolution in hindsight so to speak. The user wants to open an RFC and I've said I'm agreeable but I'm pretty sure it needs to go somewhere else than just a RFC. It's annoying because it's time-consuming and I'm not familiar with any of this but I don't see why I should be bullied like this by the user and I'm not prepared to let it go. Thank you for you explanation and time.
FightingMac (
talk) 21:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm with you man. I really am. It would be nice if we didn't need formal dispute resolution processes, which are insanely bureaucratic and obstruse. Still, some level of formality is needed because invariably things degrade into silly and stupid bickering, which rather than reduce tensions, only helps to increase them. The
WP:DR processes are usually designed to prevent fighting, and instead force people into an objective assessment of problems, with an eye on correcting them. If we didn't have some structure, we'd have chaos. Again, I want to live in a world where Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes aren't necessary. Wanting to live in that world doesn't mean that I do, however, so unfortunately, because people fight, we need ways to solve those fights. C'est la guerre. --
Jayron
32 22:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Cheers Jayron. Understood and agreed. I'm not sure how to proceed with my nuisance editor. I suppose I can live with my interlanguage links being interfered with like this but it's the way he comes back at you that bugs me. He followed me (I mean on my user name, not his because I was very careful not to mention it) to the Help desk yesterday and I find that creepy. He was there in minutes. FightingMac ( talk) 04:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm with you man. I really am. It would be nice if we didn't need formal dispute resolution processes, which are insanely bureaucratic and obstruse. Still, some level of formality is needed because invariably things degrade into silly and stupid bickering, which rather than reduce tensions, only helps to increase them. The
WP:DR processes are usually designed to prevent fighting, and instead force people into an objective assessment of problems, with an eye on correcting them. If we didn't have some structure, we'd have chaos. Again, I want to live in a world where Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes aren't necessary. Wanting to live in that world doesn't mean that I do, however, so unfortunately, because people fight, we need ways to solve those fights. C'est la guerre. --
Jayron
32 22:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for this. You misunderstand. I have no personal conflict with Obsidian. I was pointing out that the user whose behaviour I was complaining about at the Help desk had gone on to flame Obsidian on his talk page. I wasn't engaging in a personal war with a user at the Help but asking for help with a user who had been demonstrably uncivil to me, as indeed he quickly went on to be with Obsidian attempting to mediate. I do care about interlanguage links. I see you don't. I do wonder that you intervened in the circumstances. Of course it would be disingenuous of me to thank you for your time and attention as I have just thanked Obsidian.
FightingMac (
talk) 21:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Good close on that discussion. I swear, that comment on drama was about to bring about the most drama the help desk had ever seen. Ryan Vesey ( talk) 15:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Which discussion? Not my interlanguage links thread surely? Can't be that dramatic. Do you care about interlanguage links? Feel free to contribute! FightingMac ( talk) 15:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Jayron. I recently asked a question at the help desk about being able to edit protected pages without being an admin. After our conversation, I began looking into the process. Not being very acquainted with the process and not really knowing what to expect, I decided I'd draft a proposal in my user space before actually making the request. I currently have the template questions answered in my sandbox and would appreciate it if you might look over them and possibly give me some tips on what to include, exclude, reword, etc. I know that we haven't had any interaction at all besides that short conversation, but I was hoping to get a neutral perspective. Feel no obligation to comment, though. Thanks!-- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 20:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- It actually looks pretty good. I don't often get involved with RFA stuff, but 'I' would certainly support this, and my sense is that others would as well. Some general tips before you get started:
- Other users will ask you questions along the way. Answer these promptly, directly, and honestly as you have done here.
- People will oppose your nomination (it rarely happens that no one opposes, so expect it to happen). If they ask questions in their opposition vote, or indicate that they would like to see something (evidence of something or other) it may be permissible to respond to that. In general, however, it is best to not respond to oppose votes, as tempting as it may be. If there is a lot of back-and-forth arguements between you and the people that oppose your RFA it will usually be seen as unproductive, and may sink your RFA attempt. In other words, there will always be some nutjobs that oppose your nomination, resist the temptation to be a nutjob yourself, and just let them be.
- Be certain that you familiarize yourself with certain aspects of adminship, especially WP:NOBIGDEAL (i.e. you aren't held in higher regard that you are now an admin, however you WILL be under more scrutiny...) and the distinction between a WP:BLOCK and a WP:BAN, as those sorts of questions usually come up. Also, be clear on the appropriate use of WP:CSD and speedy deletion, (i.e. the distinction between indications of importantce and notability as in A7, and the very conservative application of CSD standards). You have made it clear that you don't often intend to use all of the admin tools, but you should be very clear on the proper use and application of them, as the question will come up.
- Hope that is helpful, and if you have any more questions, feel free to ask! --
Jayron
32 21:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the suggestions. I've just started the RfA at
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dudemanfellabra. I'd be grateful if you commented. Also, another question: would it be considered
WP:canvassing if I dropped a note at
WT:NRHP alerting the members of that project?--
Dudemanfellabra (
talk) 21:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. And the very fact that you asked will likely lead to some opposing.
Malleus
Fatuorum 22:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- What he said. In general, don't tell ANYONE that you are up for adminship. It will be generally seen as canvasing, and will result in people opposing you. --
Jayron
32 22:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's a bizarre convention, and does Wikipedia no credit, that its administrators have to be elected in semi-private.
Malleus
Fatuorum 22:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree it is weird. However, for some strange reason, everyone instantly opposes any RFA which is advertised anywhere. Think about it. What would your first response be should anyone advertise their own RFA? It would be to assume they were canvassing, and then instantly oppose on that grounds, regardless of how trustworthy the person who was applying would be in using the tools. I agree with you that its a shitty reason to oppose someone being granted access to the tools (the evidence of potential misuse should be the primary criterion) but C'est la vie. --
Jayron
32 22:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, that wouldn't be my first assumption. My first RfA was partly sunk because I notified two editors who'd asked to be notified of it, but of course the mud sticks; nobody bothers to look for the truth. I have to say though that I'm astonished that you're supporting this RfA. Extraordinary.
Malleus
Fatuorum 23:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I am? --
Jayron
32 23:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- You were, and obviously without doing even the simplest of checks.
Malleus
Fatuorum 23:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I were, I have, and now I am not. Is this sequence of events confusing to you? Oh, I forgot, nothing has ever happened which has caused your opinion of an event to change. I forget that your perspective on things is perfect the moment you have it, and that it isn't possible for your mind to be changed on anything, even if new information arises. That it happens to other people must seem quite alien and confusing to you. My bad. Carry on. --
Jayron
32 23:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Don't poke me Jayron32, you may not like the consequences.
Malleus
Fatuorum 23:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Aw, come on. Can't a guy have a little fun? --
Jayron
32 23:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Aren't you supposed to be a trusted and responsible person here? You supported someone at RfA who you obviously had no knowledge of whatsoever. How could you possibly believe that was a responsible thing to do?
Malleus
Fatuorum 23:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Goodness, Malleus, haven't you learned about me yet. You've been around here long enough to understand these things. I am nothing more than a carefully constructed fraud who exists solely to amass power for myself in the form of groomed minions of underling admins, and to then, at the appointed time, gather my secretly trained army of brainwashed drones to do my bidding and destroy Wikipedia from within. Jeesh, get with the program. I thought that the sheer number of my comments at RFA in the past year ( the astronomically high number of 1) coupled with the brazen overuse of admin tools I show in how often I block, protect, or delete things, should have made my intentions quite overt. My goodness, I am shocked that you haven't yet learned how destructive and dangerous I am towards Wikipedia, and how much I must be stopped! Please, quick, gather your band of underground Wikipedia superheros, its time for you to mount a defense before its too late. -- Jayron 32 23:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Aren't you supposed to be a trusted and responsible person here? You supported someone at RfA who you obviously had no knowledge of whatsoever. How could you possibly believe that was a responsible thing to do?
Malleus
Fatuorum 23:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Aw, come on. Can't a guy have a little fun? --
Jayron
32 23:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Don't poke me Jayron32, you may not like the consequences.
Malleus
Fatuorum 23:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I were, I have, and now I am not. Is this sequence of events confusing to you? Oh, I forgot, nothing has ever happened which has caused your opinion of an event to change. I forget that your perspective on things is perfect the moment you have it, and that it isn't possible for your mind to be changed on anything, even if new information arises. That it happens to other people must seem quite alien and confusing to you. My bad. Carry on. --
Jayron
32 23:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- You were, and obviously without doing even the simplest of checks.
Malleus
Fatuorum 23:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I am? --
Jayron
32 23:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, that wouldn't be my first assumption. My first RfA was partly sunk because I notified two editors who'd asked to be notified of it, but of course the mud sticks; nobody bothers to look for the truth. I have to say though that I'm astonished that you're supporting this RfA. Extraordinary.
Malleus
Fatuorum 23:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree it is weird. However, for some strange reason, everyone instantly opposes any RFA which is advertised anywhere. Think about it. What would your first response be should anyone advertise their own RFA? It would be to assume they were canvassing, and then instantly oppose on that grounds, regardless of how trustworthy the person who was applying would be in using the tools. I agree with you that its a shitty reason to oppose someone being granted access to the tools (the evidence of potential misuse should be the primary criterion) but C'est la vie. --
Jayron
32 22:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's a bizarre convention, and does Wikipedia no credit, that its administrators have to be elected in semi-private.
Malleus
Fatuorum 22:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- What he said. In general, don't tell ANYONE that you are up for adminship. It will be generally seen as canvasing, and will result in people opposing you. --
Jayron
32 22:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. And the very fact that you asked will likely lead to some opposing.
Malleus
Fatuorum 22:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the suggestions. I've just started the RfA at
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dudemanfellabra. I'd be grateful if you commented. Also, another question: would it be considered
WP:canvassing if I dropped a note at
WT:NRHP alerting the members of that project?--
Dudemanfellabra (
talk) 21:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
|
|
Clown of the month (so far) |
| Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC) |
Jayron, are you using a bad spell checker or word suggester? "Pickaninny" is a slang term, historically derogatory, for a small black child . . . not a minor point of interpretation in a ballgame.
Maybe you want to re-edit that response on RD/M before the race police start picketing both of us? DaHorsesMouth ( talk) 01:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I'm not offended, but you can bet your right nut that somebody will be :-).
- Jayron, I usually don't modify other peoples' posts, but I've taken the liberty of changing this to "penny-ante" (which is what I'm sure you meant) to avoid misunderstandings. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 02:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I suspect Jay-Ron had Jay-Z's "Lettin' these clowns nitpick at me / Paint me like a Pickaninny" playing tricks on his mind. What More Can I Say? . --- Sluzzelin talk 02:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)