Hello Jayron32, you gave me a terrific answer at the Teahouse so I'll give you some imaginary strawberries. Enjoy! From your friendly neighbourhood Teahouse question asker! --
DangerousJXD (
talk) 02:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC) P.S (They are imaginary because for whatever reason Wiki love would not work.)reply
Hello, Jayron32. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{
You've got mail}} or {{
ygm}} template.
I didn't remove the comment. An IP, probably the troll, disparaged the amount of editing in mainspace that one of the Reference Desk regulars does. The regular deleted the exchange. Another IP re-inserted it. Spinningspark re-removed it. I was just stating that insulting comments may be removed. Replying here rather than on the Reference Desk as a less obvious place for the troll to see.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 23:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)reply
A or D
I think that
this might actually be category "A" for that RFC's question instead of "D" (not watching this page; I don't need a reply).
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 00:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your suggestions to me regarding my recent dispute resolution request. Also, how cool that you have your own day named after you!
Daniellagreen (
talk) 18:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)reply
After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Godot13 (
submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Casliber (
submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance
Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles
Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and
Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.
The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
J Milburn (
talk·contribs)
The ed17 (
talk·contribs) and
Miyagawa (
talk·contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)reply
A beer for you!
Enjoy, you deserve it! Cheers,
Huldra (
talk) 20:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi, I am requesting a peer review for Hamish Peacock. Peacock is an Australian javelin thrower who has competed at: Senior, Junior and Youth World Championships and is competing in the Glasgow Commonwealth Games in the coming weeks. I would greatly appreciate if you could review this article.
Believing something that we can't see "is" the color we see as its effect at least makes sense. The scary extension is that a fair number of college students believe certain elements are the color their textbooks have used to represent them. So oxygen atoms are presumed to be, say, red, if one could see them at the atomic level--failure to understand what's an artifact of the model or representation vs the reality. Even much worse, some seem to remember that we can't see individual atoms, so the color would only make sense if talking about a visible collection of them (presumably their critical-thinking braincells died from lack of oxygen after breathing not-red air).
DMacks (
talk) 22:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm not resisting anything. I'll use whatever word you want. What I won't do is pretend that using a new word has any practical effect on helping the situation. You help people by helping people. You have compassion by having compassion. You treat people respectfully by treating the respectfully. You allow people their dignity by treating them as though they have it. You don't, however, do any of that by merely changing a few arbitrary vocal utterances to a different arbitrary set of vocal utterances, and the pretending that is in any fraction sufficient to correcting any part of the problem.
so much that I felt compelled to thank you for it personally (well, as personally as this medium permits), and to say that I might quote it elsewhere in the future, in whole or in parts.
No such user (
talk) 08:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Well, thank you for your kind words! --
Jayron32 15:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited
List of Russian rulers, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages
False Dmitriy and
Succession crisis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the
FAQ • Join us at the
DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these
opt-out instructions. Thanks,
DPL bot (
talk) 09:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)reply
I think I clicked the "thank" link in the history - but in case I didn't (or in case it did not work - or even if I did and it did), I thought it would be appropriate to say, directly, that I do appreciate your gracious post on the Humanities board about our differing interpretations of the (legal and historical) effects of the Restoration of Charles II. It was very decent of you, and is truly appreciated. I would like to add that I doubt I would have got so worked up if it wasn't for the fact that I do appreciate the great majority of your posts on the RefDesks! So thank you - and best wishes. And, if everyone agreed with me I think I would die of boredom!
DuncanHill (
talk) 01:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)reply
No problem. I got your "thank" and it was much appreciated. I was out of line, and I have no problem copping to it when I am. I am glad we came to an amicable resolution to what was, ultimately, a stupid conflict. --
Jayron32 01:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)reply
I know I said it about Bugs & I - but I think it applies to you and me too - we are divided by our common language. There is, I think, a dryness to British speech which is inaudible to American ears. At some times it can be very entertaining - but at others it can lead to profound misunderstanding. I sometimes forget that not all of our American cousins are as au fait with (British) English style as my very own personal American cousins! And I do mean it that I appreciate your posts. Thank you again, and I should never have suggested that you were anything less than honest in our misunderstanding.
DuncanHill (
talk) 01:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)reply
You appear to have participated in some recent discussion of the conduct of the IP editor
203.217.29.182, who seems to show a tendency to want to add a country identification to the names of U.S. places such as
Chicago, Illinois. You are hereby invited to participate in a further discussion of this topic that I have begun at
WP:ANI. —
BarrelProof (
talk) 18:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)reply
WikiProject Good articles Future GAN Backlog Drive
Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!
TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.
If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.
At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.
As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!
For your excellent knowledge of the inner workings of the Matrix at the Teahouse. And for brightening up my evening. :)
w.carter-Talk 22:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Gaza conflict change discussion on Main Page talk page
Hi, there. I saw that you had a hard time dealing with DePiep on the Main Page talk page a few weeks back. Now I'm requesting the exact same change as him, except in a polite and non-accusatory manner, in order to rub it in his face. I would really appreciate it if you could chime in there, whichever way you stand on the issue. Cheers.
WinterWall (
talk) 18:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm not in the rubbing in the face business. You'll have to find someone else. --
Jayron32 23:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)reply
I got busy. You could do it too. --
Jayron32 00:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Newmancbn
You told him he couldn't appeal for 12 months - to be fair, he was told " If you with to appeal this topic ban, it may be done at WP:AN, however given the clear consensus I would advise waiting at least six months to demonstrate that you can edit in a clear, non-confrontational and productive style before appealing." Not that that I think he will ever get it.
Dougweller (
talk) 07:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Six, twelve. He needs to back off for an extended time and prove he knows how to behave. That's what he needs. --
Jayron32 12:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Yep. We'll see how he behaves on other articles where he doesn't seem to have such a vested interest.
Dougweller (
talk) 18:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Hello, Jayron32/Archive27. Your question has been answered at the
Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there! Please note that all old questions are
archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by
Jayron32 20:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC). (You can
remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).reply
Hey Jayron32. I request you to review the
Lucknow article for GA status. I have worked tirelessly on the article pulling many all-nighters to make it a high quality WP article which includes copy-edit and restructuring. Now all it needs is an honest GA review because i will be out in some some days for a few months so i will not be able to provide solutions to the shortcomings which the article may have during the review and the nominations seem to have been pending since May and i wanted a rapid review. Thanking You.
Wikiboy2364 (
talk) 21:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Sorry. I'm not doing GA reviews anymore; I only have time to spend short bursts on Wikipedia, and don't have the time to give GA reviews the sort of depth they require. I hope you find someone else! --
Jayron32 22:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)reply
ANI discussion regarding User:The Rambling Man
I began participating in ITN nominations a few weeks ago and have noted The Rambling Man's uncivil behavior, after some events recently, I've raised the issue of his uncivil behavior at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Inappropriate conduct by administrator User:The Rambling Man. I noticed one particular comment you made and TRM's egregious response and quoted both in the ANI discussion. You noted in that remark that "This smacks of the WP:POINT behavior we've all come to expect of you". Since I've only been acquainted with TRM for a couple weeks, I invite you to comment in the discussion with any more relevant material relating to this user's behavior. Thanks.
AHeneen (
talk) 03:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Cheers
Fair enough post, even if I'm not watching it. I will go to my grave defending certain areas of Wikipedia against people who think they are entitled to do things which they simply are not just because they happen to have a particular flag, but otherwise I couldn't fault your logic.
The Rambling Man (
talk) 12:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
We all have many faults.... some of us are just open and honest about them...
The Rambling Man (
talk) 14:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
GA Cup
Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!
As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:
For all of you that do not know what the
WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.
For more info on the proposal,
click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).
The discussion for the proposal will take place
here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.
The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:
Godot13 (
submissions), a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
Casliber (
submissions) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
Czar (
submissions) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
Adam Cuerden (
submissions) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
12george1 (
submissions) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
Sturmvogel 66 (
submissions), the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
Bloom6132 (
submissions), the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.
There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The
Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the
GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.
There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
J Milburn (
talk·contribs)
The ed17 (
talk·contribs) and
Miyagawa (
talk·contribs) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)reply
You recently gave Mac22203 a 1 week block for edit warring at
Centerplate. Mac22203 is clearly editing around the block to restore their version of the page.
[2]Edward321 (
talk) 12:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)reply
French-Canadian?
Recently, on the RD, you said that your family was originally French Canadian. Does that mean you are descended from the
Tories in the Revolutionary War who then returned to American soil in the New England area before you moved to the South?
65.24.105.132 (
talk) 23:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)reply
No, I'm descended from French settlers in Quebec. Some as far back as the 1700s. --
Jayron32 01:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Same person here. (I have no idea why my IP address inexplicably changed. I didn't even notice it until I saw my editing history while I was editing the article, "family values". That article needed a lot of improvement, because it was far too political and touched barely on the standard usage in the academic literature. Most of the previous content should really be included under "Controversies in marriage law based on American conservative Christian family values".) Anyway, do you still speak French? Do you do a cheek-kiss as a greeting? Is your last name French? Has French food passed down in your family? How long was your family French Catholic?
71.79.234.132 (
talk) 20:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)reply
1) Only what I learned over 20 years ago in HS. So, no, not really 2) No. Shake hands, fist bump, a nod and "hey, whazzup" all work. 3) Yes. 4) French Canadian food especially. I have a warm place in my heart for my grandmother's
tourtière. My aunt Joanne used to make a real good homemade
cretons as well. 5) As long as I have known them. I am currently a member of a Southern Baptist church, but the rest of my family (those that are religious) are still Roman Catholic. And they've all been of French descent their whole lives. Except for my one great-grandfather that was
Blackfoot. --
Jayron32 20:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Advice on WP:Civil issue
Hi, I saw you were posting over at
WP:ANI and I could do with some advice regariding a civility and tone issue. I'm not certain if it's severe enough to go to ANI with or if I'm over-reacting. IS it appropriate to ask you to look at it here or do I need to go to a formal location for it?
SPACKlick (
talk) 01:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
You can ask. If I don't think it's appropriate, I'll direct you elsewhere. But it's a free world. Go ahead and ask... --
Jayron32 01:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm quite uncomfortable with the tone
User:Tarc has used in several edits and edit summaries, mainly at Zoe Quinn, but also some I saw at ANI when I was viewing that to see if it was an appropriate venue for my concerns.
herearesomerelevantdiffs,
12345. I'm not sure that covers the whole picture but it links to the relevant areas.
SPACKlick (
talk) 01:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Just spotted
this one on Zoe Quinn being reverted as well.
SPACKlick (
talk) 01:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't know. Not familiar with the article at all. If you can word it diplomatically, ANI may be the place to go. Be aware, however, that ANI is notorious for not giving a shit about civility issues like this, and expect people to ignore the central points of your argument and twist your words to mean different from what you state plainly. But then again, it looks like you're already seeing that. --
Jayron32 01:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Speaking of tone--Jayron, would you, ahem, mind removing that inch remark from ANI?
Drmies (
talk) 02:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
What's wrong with it? --
Jayron32 02:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Nm. I took care of it like you asked. --
Jayron32 02:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I appreciate it. Thanks.
Drmies (
talk) 02:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I thought you'd appreciate a musically inspired title...
FYI, I had checked the Ref Desk talk page for a discussion about the topic removal. That is, after all, the usual place for such removals to be discussed. I didn't think to check the user's talk page. Thanks for the info. Dismas|
(talk) 01:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
That's going to be my next band's name. Thanks for that... --
Jayron32 01:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Roxelana/Hürrem Sultan
Hi. You moved Hürrem Sultan to Roxelana again. Why did you do this? None of the wives of the Ottoman Sultans' articles have a title like this. Roxelana is just a nickname. She became powerful and known by the name "Hürrem Sultan" throughout the big Ottoman Empire and now what do we have? An article which its heading is not similar to the articles of the other Ottoman Sultanas. Also I should say that many Sultanas were known by nicknames like this, for example her daughter and It's not a good reason to keep this article under the title "Roxelana". If you have a good reason, please tell me and let me know your opinion. Keivan.fTalk 18:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
(
talk page stalker) A few months ago, you proposed that the article be renamed. The discussion, which you saw fit to remove, did not go your way. If you wish to start a new discussion that's your privilege. I have had to remind 68.100.172.139(
talk·contribs·WHOIS) that copy/paste moves are not the way to go about these matters.
Favonian (
talk) 18:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Favonian, Of course it didn't go my way, and yes I removed that discussion and I have no fear to say that I did it. Also Jayron32 left a message on my talk page which was similar to your explanations. I'll give a request in the future for changing the title of this article. Anyway where are
Roxelana's links to other wikis? Keivan.fTalk 20:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
"No fear"? Disruptive editing is the commonly used phrase around here. Do it again, and you'll be blocked. Regarding the interwiki links, Wikidata was confused by your machinations. It should be back to normal now.
Favonian (
talk) 20:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Are you trying to scare me from blocking? No problem as you are an administrator you can do everything you want. And also I should notice that Wikidata wasn't confused by my machinations. I didn't move Roxelana to Hurrem Sultan. You should discuss another user about this matter. Keivan.fTalk 06:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Hey, I wanted to mention that your contribution to
Development hell wasn't reverted because you added bad information, or because that project shouldn't go in the article - on the contrary, I think there probably should be an entry on the page for that film. There has just been a persistent problem on that particular article with various editors (not you) adding excessive detail or information without references, and in recent months it became quite severe, with the page length jumping by thousands and thousands of characters in a matter of hours, then getting edited back, then growing to the same excessive length a few days later, etc. In addition to semi-protection for the article, there is also now a heightened sensitivity to the length of entries and to the need for inline citations on any entry, and a little less leeway to add information and rely on other editors to improve or refimprove, even for confirmed users. Anything that looks suspect tends to get reverted to keep the page under control. But, if you feel like adding a shorter entry to the page for the same film project, using inline citations, I think that would be appreciated by other editors, including myself. Thanks again for your contributions.
Universaladdress (
talk) 00:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Universaladdress:. Thanks for the heads up. I totally understand. The references are pretty copious at
Superman in film, so I thought that would be enough. I migrated some of the better ones over to the
Development hell article. I hope this helps! --
Jayron32 00:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I often try to explain to editors what to do when they are too closely paraphrasing. Then I read something you wrote, which I have used a couple times.
I recognize the irony of telling an editor they should not be appropriating the words of others, while using the words of others, so I am looking for your permission to use the template without mentioning you, or advice on how to identify that you are the author.--
S Philbrick(Talk) 17:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)reply
It's all good. I'm not offended or anything. If it bothers you, just name drop me. My awesomeness will generally make any message carry more weight. But seriously, it's not a big deal. If we ever meet in person, just buy me a beer, and we'll call it even. --
Jayron32 18:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Works for me, I owe you a beer.:)--
S Philbrick(Talk) 18:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Hideous behaviour
Hi there Jayron!
I note over at WT:ITN you accused me of being an 'old user' on a new account.
Please substantiate the claim or retract it. Being a moderator here (or you atleast claim to be), you should know we function on 'civility', alledgedly. Leaving such a vague attack in place, in addition to your other attack against me of spouting 'bullshit' and being 'self-righteous' for merely objecting to unsuitable ITN candidate would be poor.
I second the opinion that you are, in fact, an "old user" on a "new account".
Doctalk 06:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Then that is too a personal attack against me. Please refrain from making such accusations without some basis in fact. Ever since I offended the ITN hivemind by objecting to Oscar Pistorious you people have been after me.
Valiant Patriot (
talk) 07:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)reply
No it isn't a personal attack. This is your first named account?
Doctalk 07:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't know what sort of attack you call making an unfounded accusation but it seems like a personal one to me. Ever since I objected to the posting of Oscar Pistorious on the front page I've had no less than *four* editors make attacks and/or aggresive comments towards me. Please, accuse me all you like, as long as you provide some evidence so my good name isn't needlessly dragged through mud. I can honestly attest to the fact this is my first 'named' (?) account as you request, so I'd appreciate if this sordid speculation would go away. Thankyou,
Valiant Patriot (
talk) 08:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)reply
You never edited extensively using IP addresses before creating this account?
Doctalk 08:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)reply
No - And I don't think I'll respond to further interrogation without basis. I'd kindly and finally request you to retract your accusation so that I do not have to escalate this dispute to have my name cleared, which could make you look a bit silly. I was instructed upon joining this site to remain civil at all times, and here you have failed to do so.
Valiant Patriot (
talk) 08:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)reply
"I retract nothing"? What the hell is this, Doc9871, your romantic last stand? You aren't Don Giovanni being dragged down to hell, no need to get so dramatic. I'll escalate this tomorrow to the helpdesk or the adminboard so someone can perhaps talk some sense into you and to get my name cleared. The fact you are so brazenly unrepentant in your accusations against me is a bit unsettling (and is quite appalling). Do you know something about me I don't?
Valiant Patriot (
talk) 08:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)reply
You can escalate if you want, but having your "good name cleared" (at an admin board or anywhere else) will result in no sanction against me for any allegedly "brazen attack" here whatsoever. Seriously. Welcome to Wikipedia.
Doctalk 09:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)reply
My motivation is not spite nor retribution, only to defend my reputation from attackers such as yourself. The fact that you popped up, providing no evidence even when asked, and accused someone of breaking the rules of wikipedia speaks volumes about your atittude to fellow editors on this encyclopedia. Thankyou, I've had enough of your accusatory tone. Perhaps save it for the helpdesk?
Valiant Patriot (
talk) 09:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Nowhere does it explicitly say Cherokee is the thirtieth most spoken languages, and the US census bureau doesn't include it as a separate language and lumps all native languages but Navajo together as "other Native North American languages"; however it is the Ethnologue figures put together with the US census bureau survey conducted in 2009 that indicate Cherokee is at number thirty, since of the Native American languages it is surpassed only by Navajo and there are many reliable sources that indicate the number of speakers, which none of the other immigrant languages besides those in the top twenty nine. Sorry.
@
Neddy1234:: See
WP:SYNTH. You can't come to the conclusion that Cherokee is the 30th most spoken language until you have a source that says exactly that. At Wikipedia, you cannot do
original research. The conclusion that Cherokee is 30th place is your own deductions, and is not written in any reliable source. You need to find a reliable source that lists it explicitly in that place, not some conclusion you have reached on your own by combining multiple sources. --
Jayron32 16:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)reply
WikiProject Good articles is holding a new competition, the
GA Cup, from October 1, 2014 - March 28, 2015. The Cup will be based on reviewing
Good article nominations; for each review, points will be awarded with bonuses for older nominations, longer articles and comprehensive reviews. All participants will start off in one group and the highest scoring participants will go through to the second round. At the moment six rounds are planned, but this may change based on participant numbers.
Some of you may ask: what is the purpose for a competition of this type? Currently, there is a backlog of about 500 unreviewed Good article nominations, almost an all time high. It is our hope that we can decrease the backlog in a fun way, through friendly competition.
Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors!
Sign-ups will be open until October 15, 2014 so sign-up now!
If you have any questions, take a look at the
FAQ page and/or contact one of the four judges.
Hi, Jayron! You might want to take a look at
this and possibly
this. I am not sure what to do about this mess anymore.
Surtsicna (
talk) 11:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)reply
WHo are you and why should I be offended? --
Jayron32 16:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Mr Crankypants?
Hi Jayron.
YOU ARE CORRECT. There are no rules. Get used to it.
For the record, that came across to me as more than a little short. Quite a bit more, actually. Cheers. --
Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 20:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Sorry. Next time I won't tell someone they are correct? Still confused... --
Jayron32 01:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Well, the ALL CAPS set the tone. That was unnecessary, unfriendly, and contrary to the advice we very frequently give to our OPs, not to shout at us. But that aside, those words themselves were sufficient. Or maybe "You are correct, there are no rules". Fine. But the final sentence "Get used to it", was the killer, particularly given the apparently unfriendly tone already set by the ALL CAPS. I wouldn't have been at all happy being on the receiving end. I know you speak plainly, sometimes bluntly, and that's OK. But this one missed the mark, mate. Or hit it rather too hard. It was quite reasonable for the OP to assume you were angry with them or were reacting to some offence they had caused. That's my take. --
Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 04:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Fair enough. We all fall short of expectations. I will work harder next time to ensure my intent is clearer. Because I certainly meant no harm; and if my words did not convey that, it is certainly a problem I need to work on. --
Jayron32 11:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I don't think it's a big problem at all. I'm sure this was unintentional. --
Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 12:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited
National Football League lore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page
Marc Wilson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the
FAQ • Join us at the
DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these
opt-out instructions. Thanks,
DPL bot (
talk) 09:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I really got confused..
68.100.172.139 (
talk) 02:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely keivan.f is biar122
we are sick and tired of these...
68.100.172.139 (
talk) 02:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Hello. I want to report this IP user who just reverts my edits without a clear reason. He's in an edit war with me now. Please take a look at
this, he removed a huge material with a little explanation. Also he adds unnecessary images that he likes to the articles of Ottoman consorts, for example
this one. These pictures have no purpose at all and take huge spaces. When I reverted his edits he accused me of vandalism. He also thinks that
I and User:Surtsicna are socks of Biar122. Keivan.fTalk 06:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I also reported him to
User:Ponyo. I think only administrators can solve these problems. Keivan.fTalk 16:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Please use
WP:ANI for help with this. --
Jayron32 17:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)reply
October 2014 Wikification Drive
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's
October Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by hundreds of 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 October 1, but you can still
sign up!
Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to
sign up for the
GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
J Milburn (
talk·contribs)
The ed17 (
talk·contribs) and
Miyagawa (
talk·contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Based on this
[4], could you please take a look at this
[5] discussion? For more insight, this
[6] discussion has also been taking place. Thank you. -- Winkelvi ● ✉✓ 02:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Sorry. I'm not interested in wading into politically charged arguments and expressing opinions that piss people off. I'm sure you can all work it out without me. --
Jayron32 02:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)reply
No problem. Thanks for the prompt reply. -- Winkelvi ● ✉✓ 02:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Disambiguation link notification for October 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited
Cuisine of New England, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page
Rutland, Vermont. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the
FAQ • Join us at the
DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these
opt-out instructions. Thanks,
DPL bot (
talk) 09:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Nope. Lived in several parts of the U.S., but that hasn't been one of them. --
Jayron32 04:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Moribund
Any thoughts on how to proceed with the "new" way of listing stuff? Your thoughts here were enlightening. Who maintains this new "master list"? You? Yikes.
Doctalk 06:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Not interested one way or the other. --
Jayron32 06:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Um, you are kinda interested, since you edited the policy page multiple times to reflect the new changes. Plausible deniability with extreme disinterest. I get it. It's fun dealing with the "powers that be". Cheers.
Doctalk 06:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)reply
There was a request to remove the redlinks, which I did. Otherwise, I don't have a strong attachment to any sort of resolution to the situation. You're free to find other people to work with who maybe have better ideas. I just don't have any. --
Jayron32 06:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Alright then. Sorry to bother you with this. Cheers :)
Doctalk 06:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm just posting to say that I was pinged by this discussion for some reason, though I'm not sure why as I have no connection other than that I once edited the page linked up above, but it was 2 diffs away from the one linked. That is a weird glitch if it is one.
—Soap— 17:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)reply
No idea. I didn't ping you. Must be a glitch or something. --
Jayron32 17:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)reply
No idea? Really? :-) The original edit transcluded
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse rather than linking to it, causing pings for anyone who had participated in that discussion via their user signatures. Due to the accidental transclusion, MediaWiki saw the original post here as including many links to many users.
This edit disabled the transclusion, while
this edit corrected the syntax to be as it was intended. This issue is tracked by
bugzilla:50082. --
MZMcBride (
talk) 03:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Blame Doc then. I saw the transclusion and disabled it, because I didn't need the entire page recreated here. He's the one who transcluded it in the first place. --
Jayron32 03:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Not blaming anyone and your edit was fine. (Sorry if I came across as suggesting otherwise.) The current pinging behavior with transclusions is a bit of a nasty trap on MediaWiki's part. I'm still not sure there's a clear answer to how to solve this particular problem, but if anyone has ideas about this, feel free to drop a comment on
bugzilla:50082.
Quiddity is perhaps correct about lowering the ping threshold. --
MZMcBride (
talk) 05:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)reply
58.164.175.36 (
talk·contribs). How deeply do I have to delve into that joke category to find a major problem? Who is that IP representing? How could anyone possibly know why that IP is a "banned user"? How many more are like that one? No way is that cat anywhere near "useful" as it is now.
Doctalk 06:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi, I noticed that with this edit
[7] you restored the work of blocked editor Newzealand123, who is blocked on EN-WP as well as Commons. Per
WP:EVASION any editor is allowed to delete material from blocked users such as NZ or accounts working on her behalf. I gave an explanation here
[8]. Maybe there is a misunderstanding. Could you please explain why you restored the work of a blocked, indeed highly disruptive editor? Would you like some more information from me on this case? Thanks.
Logical Cowboy (
talk) 22:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Logical Cowboy: Look, you are allowed to remove it if you choose to. You are not forced to remove it, nor is useful material forbidden from ever being at Wikipedia merely because the useful material was added by a banned user. Yes, removing it once was fine. No one complained that you removed it. Clarityfiend, in good faith, found the picture useful, and added it to the article. Once that's been done, it's Clarityfiend's edit you are removing, not whatever other user you've got a problem with. Clarityfiend doesn't have to defend his good faith edit here. If you have another reason to remove it besides a personal vendetta you have against one person, please tell Clarityfiend what is wrong with the picture he's using. If you don't have a reason besides "The first person who did this is blocked, so I must revert it forever", find something else to do, because you aren't making Wikipedia articles better. Again, tell Clarityfiend (not me) what is wrong with the picture itself (not the person who added it) and explain why you think the picture Clarityfiend added is wrong on it's own terms. Yes, you can remove edits from a banned editor. Clarityfiend is not banned, and so you need to take it up with them and explain to them why they cannot add the picture. And don't bring up the blocked issue because Clarityfiend isn't blocked. --
Jayron32 22:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi, thanks for the quick response. Actually I did take this up with paid editor Clarityfiend
[9] and he seemed to respond that he was okay with not restoring the picture from blocked editor NZ
[10]. He said that he was mainly deleting material and that he didn't intend to pursue this further. So I think there is a misunderstanding, you restored the material from the blocked editor NZ after paid editor Clarityfiend said he was fine with the deletion. Also, per
WP:EVASION, the issue is not whether paid editor Clarityfiend is blocked. He's not. The issue is whether paid editor Clarityfiend is editing as a "proxy" of a blocked editor. I think he is. NZ is a paid editor, paid by someone (call him X). Paid editor Clarityfiend was paid by someone, either NZ or X, once the sockpuppet of NZ was discovered. In either case, I see paid editor Clarityfiend as a proxy of NZ, either paid by her or paid by someone else to do her work. I hope this clears things up. Thanks again.
Logical Cowboy (
talk) 00:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)reply
OK. As long as you've followed up, I'm good with this. Toodles! --
Jayron32 11:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited
National Football League regular season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page
Doubleheader. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the
FAQ • Join us at the
DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these
opt-out instructions. Thanks,
DPL bot (
talk) 12:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)reply
WikiCup 2014: The results
The 2014 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (
submissions), who flew the flag of the
Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents. Cwmhiraeth (
submissions), 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles. Casliber (
submissions), WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.
A full list of our prize-winners follows:
Godot13 (
submissions) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 181 featured pictures in the final round.
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 65 did you knows in the final round.
Casliber (
submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for four featured articles in the final round.
ThaddeusB (
submissions) wins the news prize for 28 in the news articles in round 3.
Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
J Milburn (
talk·contribs)
The ed17 (
talk·contribs) and
Miyagawa (
talk·contribs) 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi Jay. I noticed you removed the PROD tag from the above article, stating that "WP:BALL does not apply. The event is not speculative, Wikipedia does have articles on scheduled future events if the event is notable.". Just a couple of clarifications needed:
1 - The event does not happen until October 2015. In that time a lot could happen, so how it could not be considered speculative is a little bit beyond me.
2 - How can an article, whose only reference is a link to the site that runs the competition, be considered notable?
Thanks in advance for your answers. --
Skamecrazy123 (
talk) 12:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)reply
1) Wikipedia has many articles on future events. I'll not insult your intelligence by linking to any of them. You can find many links to future elections, unreleased movies, upcoming sporting events, etc. The fact that the event has not happened yet is not reason to delete it; if that is you're threshold you'll be spending the next few months tagging thousands of articles and pissing off many people. I could think of more important ways to help Wikipedia improve than to see you running around hunting down every upcoming event and tagging it for deletion. 2) Notability is not a property of an article. Notability is the property of the subject of an article. A substandard article about a notable subject does not have to be deleted. It can either be improved by yourself, or left for someone else to improve. Deletion is only used for subjects whose article should never be at Wikipedia. If you genuinely think this competition is speculative and will not happen,
WP:AFD exists for you to use. I'd recommend against it, but I can't stop you from doing things merely because they are a bad idea. Have fun. --
Jayron32 01:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Unless you can see into the future and tell me whether or not this competition will definitely go ahead in October 2015, I don't see how it could be anything other than speculation at this point. I do not believe it is notable, for the reason I have given above, so I fully intend to take it to AfD and let the community have its say. If it fails then I will let the creator know I intend to move it into draft space until the event gets a lot closer. As an aside, thanks for insulting my intelligence twice by insinuating that I'm going to go gallivanting off deleting things left, right and centre, (both here and on the help page). It made me chuckle if nothing else. --
Skamecrazy123 (
talk) 01:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Skamecrazy123: I might say that I don't claim that the article should not be deleted per se. I don't know, maybe it should be. However, I take strong objection to your rationale that it should be deleted merely because it hasn't happened yet. If you are going to propose a deletion of an article, via PROD, AFD, or any other means, try a different method. If this article is deleted for a sound reason, I will not object, be upset, or anything else. Indeed, if a sound rationale can be proposed and defended, I may even support the deletion. But if your rationale is "it hasn't happened yet", that's a plainly incorrect reason to delete the article, if only because there are plenty of Wikipedia articles about events that haven't happened yet. If you start the AFD and claim it should be deleted merely because it hasn't happened yet, I would oppose. If you have some other sound rationale that has nothing to do with that particular rationale, you may find yourself a vote in your favor. It's not what you want to do here that I find a problem with. It's your faulty reasoning that is the problem. --
Jayron32 01:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)reply
The AfD is up, so comment on it as you will. If my reasoning is as flawed as you think it is, then it should be a pretty easy decision for the closing admin to make. --
Skamecrazy123 (
talk) 01:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi, you've been quoted at
this ANI. Given the iban between him and me, I also request that you as an admin formally notify the subject of my complaint. Thanks.
μηδείς (
talk) 21:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)reply
RD use
Re
this, the status-based double standard is breathtaking. When I hatted something because it was inappropriate use of RD, I got shouted down and accused of preaching, and got zero support on the issue at VPP. Very discouraging, and it's not hard to see how people become very cynical after some time at en-wiki. ‑‑
Mandruss☎ 15:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
You're upset with me because I agreed with you and redid the action you wanted done in the first place. I am totally confused. --
Jayron32 16:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm perplexed that you feel I wanted the thing hatted, after the first hat. Maybe it should have been taken to WT:RD, and I'll wear the blame for that, but it was still useful discussion as the guy clearly didn't understand what RD is about. He wasn't just trolling, as far as I could tell. He was confused, and understandably so because, as he showed with his link, the same topic was engaged by multiple experienced editors just a few months ago. So we set up an unclear and confusing situation and then react in a dismissive and condescending way with someone when they get confused. We'll talk to you about it in June, but if you come back in November and want to clarify something about the June disussion, you immediately get hatted. Then, if you don't immediately take no for an answer, you're worthy of scorn and get hatted again. How illogical is that? I'm still stuck on the hostile reaction to my hat—my attempt to do something about the unclear and confusing situation—and that's aggravated when I see the double standard. ‑‑
Mandruss☎ 16:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Sorry. When you said "I would suggest that you read it, and I have nothing else to say on this." I assumed you meant you had nothing else to say on it. I apologize for taking what you said and understanding it to mean exactly what you said. Next time, if you meant you had more to say, you shouldn't say you have nothing else to say. It's likely to confuse people like me. --
Jayron32 17:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
I wasn't aware that "I have nothing else to say" means "This deserves to be hatted." But you miss the essential point, which is that people shouldn't be faulted for being confused by the confusing situation we set up by not consistently observing RD instructions. If someone hats a debate/opinion discussion at RD, regardless of who they are, the hat should stand, the discussion should end, and that person certainly shouldn't be accused of "preaching". After awhile, people will learn that RD isn't for opinion discussions, even when the editors who happen to be around feel inclined to enter into one, and people like Pablo will no longer be confused. If this makes sense to you, you're free to support me at VPP, that hasn't been archived yet. ‑‑
Mandruss☎ 17:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
I, along with a couple other editors, am currently working to build
the Co-op. It is a new mentorship space we're working on and would be piloting in January and February. Our plan is to have experienced editors guide newcomers one-on-one based on how they wants to contribute to Wikipedia. We expect mentors to take no more than one or two editors each under them, so it wouldn't become a huge commitment at all. Your experience as an admin and at the Teahouse would be really helpful for us, especially because we plan to build the space as newcomer-friendly. If you're interesting in helping out, please
sign up here. If you have any questions about the space, I'll be happy to answer them so please feel free to let me know.
Cheers,
Soni (
talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 22:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)reply
As per your request
Feel quite free to call me various obscenities, as need be:
as need be.
μηδείς (
talk) 22:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)reply
I didn't expect that... --
Jayron32 23:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)reply
WikiCup 2015 is just around the corner...
Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.
We would like to announce that Josh (
J Milburn) and Ed (
The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (
Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (
Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (
Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the
GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.
Hello Jayron32, you gave me a terrific answer at the Teahouse so I'll give you some imaginary strawberries. Enjoy! From your friendly neighbourhood Teahouse question asker! --
DangerousJXD (
talk) 02:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC) P.S (They are imaginary because for whatever reason Wiki love would not work.)reply
Hello, Jayron32. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{
You've got mail}} or {{
ygm}} template.
I didn't remove the comment. An IP, probably the troll, disparaged the amount of editing in mainspace that one of the Reference Desk regulars does. The regular deleted the exchange. Another IP re-inserted it. Spinningspark re-removed it. I was just stating that insulting comments may be removed. Replying here rather than on the Reference Desk as a less obvious place for the troll to see.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 23:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)reply
A or D
I think that
this might actually be category "A" for that RFC's question instead of "D" (not watching this page; I don't need a reply).
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 00:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your suggestions to me regarding my recent dispute resolution request. Also, how cool that you have your own day named after you!
Daniellagreen (
talk) 18:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)reply
After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Godot13 (
submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Casliber (
submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance
Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles
Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and
Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.
The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
J Milburn (
talk·contribs)
The ed17 (
talk·contribs) and
Miyagawa (
talk·contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)reply
A beer for you!
Enjoy, you deserve it! Cheers,
Huldra (
talk) 20:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi, I am requesting a peer review for Hamish Peacock. Peacock is an Australian javelin thrower who has competed at: Senior, Junior and Youth World Championships and is competing in the Glasgow Commonwealth Games in the coming weeks. I would greatly appreciate if you could review this article.
Believing something that we can't see "is" the color we see as its effect at least makes sense. The scary extension is that a fair number of college students believe certain elements are the color their textbooks have used to represent them. So oxygen atoms are presumed to be, say, red, if one could see them at the atomic level--failure to understand what's an artifact of the model or representation vs the reality. Even much worse, some seem to remember that we can't see individual atoms, so the color would only make sense if talking about a visible collection of them (presumably their critical-thinking braincells died from lack of oxygen after breathing not-red air).
DMacks (
talk) 22:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm not resisting anything. I'll use whatever word you want. What I won't do is pretend that using a new word has any practical effect on helping the situation. You help people by helping people. You have compassion by having compassion. You treat people respectfully by treating the respectfully. You allow people their dignity by treating them as though they have it. You don't, however, do any of that by merely changing a few arbitrary vocal utterances to a different arbitrary set of vocal utterances, and the pretending that is in any fraction sufficient to correcting any part of the problem.
so much that I felt compelled to thank you for it personally (well, as personally as this medium permits), and to say that I might quote it elsewhere in the future, in whole or in parts.
No such user (
talk) 08:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Well, thank you for your kind words! --
Jayron32 15:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited
List of Russian rulers, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages
False Dmitriy and
Succession crisis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the
FAQ • Join us at the
DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these
opt-out instructions. Thanks,
DPL bot (
talk) 09:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)reply
I think I clicked the "thank" link in the history - but in case I didn't (or in case it did not work - or even if I did and it did), I thought it would be appropriate to say, directly, that I do appreciate your gracious post on the Humanities board about our differing interpretations of the (legal and historical) effects of the Restoration of Charles II. It was very decent of you, and is truly appreciated. I would like to add that I doubt I would have got so worked up if it wasn't for the fact that I do appreciate the great majority of your posts on the RefDesks! So thank you - and best wishes. And, if everyone agreed with me I think I would die of boredom!
DuncanHill (
talk) 01:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)reply
No problem. I got your "thank" and it was much appreciated. I was out of line, and I have no problem copping to it when I am. I am glad we came to an amicable resolution to what was, ultimately, a stupid conflict. --
Jayron32 01:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)reply
I know I said it about Bugs & I - but I think it applies to you and me too - we are divided by our common language. There is, I think, a dryness to British speech which is inaudible to American ears. At some times it can be very entertaining - but at others it can lead to profound misunderstanding. I sometimes forget that not all of our American cousins are as au fait with (British) English style as my very own personal American cousins! And I do mean it that I appreciate your posts. Thank you again, and I should never have suggested that you were anything less than honest in our misunderstanding.
DuncanHill (
talk) 01:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)reply
You appear to have participated in some recent discussion of the conduct of the IP editor
203.217.29.182, who seems to show a tendency to want to add a country identification to the names of U.S. places such as
Chicago, Illinois. You are hereby invited to participate in a further discussion of this topic that I have begun at
WP:ANI. —
BarrelProof (
talk) 18:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)reply
WikiProject Good articles Future GAN Backlog Drive
Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!
TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.
If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.
At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.
As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!
For your excellent knowledge of the inner workings of the Matrix at the Teahouse. And for brightening up my evening. :)
w.carter-Talk 22:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Gaza conflict change discussion on Main Page talk page
Hi, there. I saw that you had a hard time dealing with DePiep on the Main Page talk page a few weeks back. Now I'm requesting the exact same change as him, except in a polite and non-accusatory manner, in order to rub it in his face. I would really appreciate it if you could chime in there, whichever way you stand on the issue. Cheers.
WinterWall (
talk) 18:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm not in the rubbing in the face business. You'll have to find someone else. --
Jayron32 23:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)reply
I got busy. You could do it too. --
Jayron32 00:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Newmancbn
You told him he couldn't appeal for 12 months - to be fair, he was told " If you with to appeal this topic ban, it may be done at WP:AN, however given the clear consensus I would advise waiting at least six months to demonstrate that you can edit in a clear, non-confrontational and productive style before appealing." Not that that I think he will ever get it.
Dougweller (
talk) 07:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Six, twelve. He needs to back off for an extended time and prove he knows how to behave. That's what he needs. --
Jayron32 12:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Yep. We'll see how he behaves on other articles where he doesn't seem to have such a vested interest.
Dougweller (
talk) 18:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Hello, Jayron32/Archive27. Your question has been answered at the
Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there! Please note that all old questions are
archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by
Jayron32 20:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC). (You can
remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).reply
Hey Jayron32. I request you to review the
Lucknow article for GA status. I have worked tirelessly on the article pulling many all-nighters to make it a high quality WP article which includes copy-edit and restructuring. Now all it needs is an honest GA review because i will be out in some some days for a few months so i will not be able to provide solutions to the shortcomings which the article may have during the review and the nominations seem to have been pending since May and i wanted a rapid review. Thanking You.
Wikiboy2364 (
talk) 21:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Sorry. I'm not doing GA reviews anymore; I only have time to spend short bursts on Wikipedia, and don't have the time to give GA reviews the sort of depth they require. I hope you find someone else! --
Jayron32 22:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)reply
ANI discussion regarding User:The Rambling Man
I began participating in ITN nominations a few weeks ago and have noted The Rambling Man's uncivil behavior, after some events recently, I've raised the issue of his uncivil behavior at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Inappropriate conduct by administrator User:The Rambling Man. I noticed one particular comment you made and TRM's egregious response and quoted both in the ANI discussion. You noted in that remark that "This smacks of the WP:POINT behavior we've all come to expect of you". Since I've only been acquainted with TRM for a couple weeks, I invite you to comment in the discussion with any more relevant material relating to this user's behavior. Thanks.
AHeneen (
talk) 03:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Cheers
Fair enough post, even if I'm not watching it. I will go to my grave defending certain areas of Wikipedia against people who think they are entitled to do things which they simply are not just because they happen to have a particular flag, but otherwise I couldn't fault your logic.
The Rambling Man (
talk) 12:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
We all have many faults.... some of us are just open and honest about them...
The Rambling Man (
talk) 14:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
GA Cup
Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!
As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:
For all of you that do not know what the
WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.
For more info on the proposal,
click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).
The discussion for the proposal will take place
here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.
The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:
Godot13 (
submissions), a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
Casliber (
submissions) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
Czar (
submissions) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
Adam Cuerden (
submissions) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
12george1 (
submissions) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
Sturmvogel 66 (
submissions), the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
Bloom6132 (
submissions), the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.
There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The
Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the
GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.
There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
J Milburn (
talk·contribs)
The ed17 (
talk·contribs) and
Miyagawa (
talk·contribs) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)reply
You recently gave Mac22203 a 1 week block for edit warring at
Centerplate. Mac22203 is clearly editing around the block to restore their version of the page.
[2]Edward321 (
talk) 12:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)reply
French-Canadian?
Recently, on the RD, you said that your family was originally French Canadian. Does that mean you are descended from the
Tories in the Revolutionary War who then returned to American soil in the New England area before you moved to the South?
65.24.105.132 (
talk) 23:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)reply
No, I'm descended from French settlers in Quebec. Some as far back as the 1700s. --
Jayron32 01:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Same person here. (I have no idea why my IP address inexplicably changed. I didn't even notice it until I saw my editing history while I was editing the article, "family values". That article needed a lot of improvement, because it was far too political and touched barely on the standard usage in the academic literature. Most of the previous content should really be included under "Controversies in marriage law based on American conservative Christian family values".) Anyway, do you still speak French? Do you do a cheek-kiss as a greeting? Is your last name French? Has French food passed down in your family? How long was your family French Catholic?
71.79.234.132 (
talk) 20:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)reply
1) Only what I learned over 20 years ago in HS. So, no, not really 2) No. Shake hands, fist bump, a nod and "hey, whazzup" all work. 3) Yes. 4) French Canadian food especially. I have a warm place in my heart for my grandmother's
tourtière. My aunt Joanne used to make a real good homemade
cretons as well. 5) As long as I have known them. I am currently a member of a Southern Baptist church, but the rest of my family (those that are religious) are still Roman Catholic. And they've all been of French descent their whole lives. Except for my one great-grandfather that was
Blackfoot. --
Jayron32 20:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Advice on WP:Civil issue
Hi, I saw you were posting over at
WP:ANI and I could do with some advice regariding a civility and tone issue. I'm not certain if it's severe enough to go to ANI with or if I'm over-reacting. IS it appropriate to ask you to look at it here or do I need to go to a formal location for it?
SPACKlick (
talk) 01:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
You can ask. If I don't think it's appropriate, I'll direct you elsewhere. But it's a free world. Go ahead and ask... --
Jayron32 01:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm quite uncomfortable with the tone
User:Tarc has used in several edits and edit summaries, mainly at Zoe Quinn, but also some I saw at ANI when I was viewing that to see if it was an appropriate venue for my concerns.
herearesomerelevantdiffs,
12345. I'm not sure that covers the whole picture but it links to the relevant areas.
SPACKlick (
talk) 01:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Just spotted
this one on Zoe Quinn being reverted as well.
SPACKlick (
talk) 01:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't know. Not familiar with the article at all. If you can word it diplomatically, ANI may be the place to go. Be aware, however, that ANI is notorious for not giving a shit about civility issues like this, and expect people to ignore the central points of your argument and twist your words to mean different from what you state plainly. But then again, it looks like you're already seeing that. --
Jayron32 01:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Speaking of tone--Jayron, would you, ahem, mind removing that inch remark from ANI?
Drmies (
talk) 02:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
What's wrong with it? --
Jayron32 02:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Nm. I took care of it like you asked. --
Jayron32 02:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I appreciate it. Thanks.
Drmies (
talk) 02:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I thought you'd appreciate a musically inspired title...
FYI, I had checked the Ref Desk talk page for a discussion about the topic removal. That is, after all, the usual place for such removals to be discussed. I didn't think to check the user's talk page. Thanks for the info. Dismas|
(talk) 01:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
That's going to be my next band's name. Thanks for that... --
Jayron32 01:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Roxelana/Hürrem Sultan
Hi. You moved Hürrem Sultan to Roxelana again. Why did you do this? None of the wives of the Ottoman Sultans' articles have a title like this. Roxelana is just a nickname. She became powerful and known by the name "Hürrem Sultan" throughout the big Ottoman Empire and now what do we have? An article which its heading is not similar to the articles of the other Ottoman Sultanas. Also I should say that many Sultanas were known by nicknames like this, for example her daughter and It's not a good reason to keep this article under the title "Roxelana". If you have a good reason, please tell me and let me know your opinion. Keivan.fTalk 18:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
(
talk page stalker) A few months ago, you proposed that the article be renamed. The discussion, which you saw fit to remove, did not go your way. If you wish to start a new discussion that's your privilege. I have had to remind 68.100.172.139(
talk·contribs·WHOIS) that copy/paste moves are not the way to go about these matters.
Favonian (
talk) 18:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Favonian, Of course it didn't go my way, and yes I removed that discussion and I have no fear to say that I did it. Also Jayron32 left a message on my talk page which was similar to your explanations. I'll give a request in the future for changing the title of this article. Anyway where are
Roxelana's links to other wikis? Keivan.fTalk 20:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
"No fear"? Disruptive editing is the commonly used phrase around here. Do it again, and you'll be blocked. Regarding the interwiki links, Wikidata was confused by your machinations. It should be back to normal now.
Favonian (
talk) 20:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Are you trying to scare me from blocking? No problem as you are an administrator you can do everything you want. And also I should notice that Wikidata wasn't confused by my machinations. I didn't move Roxelana to Hurrem Sultan. You should discuss another user about this matter. Keivan.fTalk 06:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Hey, I wanted to mention that your contribution to
Development hell wasn't reverted because you added bad information, or because that project shouldn't go in the article - on the contrary, I think there probably should be an entry on the page for that film. There has just been a persistent problem on that particular article with various editors (not you) adding excessive detail or information without references, and in recent months it became quite severe, with the page length jumping by thousands and thousands of characters in a matter of hours, then getting edited back, then growing to the same excessive length a few days later, etc. In addition to semi-protection for the article, there is also now a heightened sensitivity to the length of entries and to the need for inline citations on any entry, and a little less leeway to add information and rely on other editors to improve or refimprove, even for confirmed users. Anything that looks suspect tends to get reverted to keep the page under control. But, if you feel like adding a shorter entry to the page for the same film project, using inline citations, I think that would be appreciated by other editors, including myself. Thanks again for your contributions.
Universaladdress (
talk) 00:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Universaladdress:. Thanks for the heads up. I totally understand. The references are pretty copious at
Superman in film, so I thought that would be enough. I migrated some of the better ones over to the
Development hell article. I hope this helps! --
Jayron32 00:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I often try to explain to editors what to do when they are too closely paraphrasing. Then I read something you wrote, which I have used a couple times.
I recognize the irony of telling an editor they should not be appropriating the words of others, while using the words of others, so I am looking for your permission to use the template without mentioning you, or advice on how to identify that you are the author.--
S Philbrick(Talk) 17:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)reply
It's all good. I'm not offended or anything. If it bothers you, just name drop me. My awesomeness will generally make any message carry more weight. But seriously, it's not a big deal. If we ever meet in person, just buy me a beer, and we'll call it even. --
Jayron32 18:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Works for me, I owe you a beer.:)--
S Philbrick(Talk) 18:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Hideous behaviour
Hi there Jayron!
I note over at WT:ITN you accused me of being an 'old user' on a new account.
Please substantiate the claim or retract it. Being a moderator here (or you atleast claim to be), you should know we function on 'civility', alledgedly. Leaving such a vague attack in place, in addition to your other attack against me of spouting 'bullshit' and being 'self-righteous' for merely objecting to unsuitable ITN candidate would be poor.
I second the opinion that you are, in fact, an "old user" on a "new account".
Doctalk 06:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Then that is too a personal attack against me. Please refrain from making such accusations without some basis in fact. Ever since I offended the ITN hivemind by objecting to Oscar Pistorious you people have been after me.
Valiant Patriot (
talk) 07:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)reply
No it isn't a personal attack. This is your first named account?
Doctalk 07:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't know what sort of attack you call making an unfounded accusation but it seems like a personal one to me. Ever since I objected to the posting of Oscar Pistorious on the front page I've had no less than *four* editors make attacks and/or aggresive comments towards me. Please, accuse me all you like, as long as you provide some evidence so my good name isn't needlessly dragged through mud. I can honestly attest to the fact this is my first 'named' (?) account as you request, so I'd appreciate if this sordid speculation would go away. Thankyou,
Valiant Patriot (
talk) 08:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)reply
You never edited extensively using IP addresses before creating this account?
Doctalk 08:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)reply
No - And I don't think I'll respond to further interrogation without basis. I'd kindly and finally request you to retract your accusation so that I do not have to escalate this dispute to have my name cleared, which could make you look a bit silly. I was instructed upon joining this site to remain civil at all times, and here you have failed to do so.
Valiant Patriot (
talk) 08:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)reply
"I retract nothing"? What the hell is this, Doc9871, your romantic last stand? You aren't Don Giovanni being dragged down to hell, no need to get so dramatic. I'll escalate this tomorrow to the helpdesk or the adminboard so someone can perhaps talk some sense into you and to get my name cleared. The fact you are so brazenly unrepentant in your accusations against me is a bit unsettling (and is quite appalling). Do you know something about me I don't?
Valiant Patriot (
talk) 08:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)reply
You can escalate if you want, but having your "good name cleared" (at an admin board or anywhere else) will result in no sanction against me for any allegedly "brazen attack" here whatsoever. Seriously. Welcome to Wikipedia.
Doctalk 09:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)reply
My motivation is not spite nor retribution, only to defend my reputation from attackers such as yourself. The fact that you popped up, providing no evidence even when asked, and accused someone of breaking the rules of wikipedia speaks volumes about your atittude to fellow editors on this encyclopedia. Thankyou, I've had enough of your accusatory tone. Perhaps save it for the helpdesk?
Valiant Patriot (
talk) 09:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Nowhere does it explicitly say Cherokee is the thirtieth most spoken languages, and the US census bureau doesn't include it as a separate language and lumps all native languages but Navajo together as "other Native North American languages"; however it is the Ethnologue figures put together with the US census bureau survey conducted in 2009 that indicate Cherokee is at number thirty, since of the Native American languages it is surpassed only by Navajo and there are many reliable sources that indicate the number of speakers, which none of the other immigrant languages besides those in the top twenty nine. Sorry.
@
Neddy1234:: See
WP:SYNTH. You can't come to the conclusion that Cherokee is the 30th most spoken language until you have a source that says exactly that. At Wikipedia, you cannot do
original research. The conclusion that Cherokee is 30th place is your own deductions, and is not written in any reliable source. You need to find a reliable source that lists it explicitly in that place, not some conclusion you have reached on your own by combining multiple sources. --
Jayron32 16:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)reply
WikiProject Good articles is holding a new competition, the
GA Cup, from October 1, 2014 - March 28, 2015. The Cup will be based on reviewing
Good article nominations; for each review, points will be awarded with bonuses for older nominations, longer articles and comprehensive reviews. All participants will start off in one group and the highest scoring participants will go through to the second round. At the moment six rounds are planned, but this may change based on participant numbers.
Some of you may ask: what is the purpose for a competition of this type? Currently, there is a backlog of about 500 unreviewed Good article nominations, almost an all time high. It is our hope that we can decrease the backlog in a fun way, through friendly competition.
Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors!
Sign-ups will be open until October 15, 2014 so sign-up now!
If you have any questions, take a look at the
FAQ page and/or contact one of the four judges.
Hi, Jayron! You might want to take a look at
this and possibly
this. I am not sure what to do about this mess anymore.
Surtsicna (
talk) 11:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)reply
WHo are you and why should I be offended? --
Jayron32 16:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Mr Crankypants?
Hi Jayron.
YOU ARE CORRECT. There are no rules. Get used to it.
For the record, that came across to me as more than a little short. Quite a bit more, actually. Cheers. --
Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 20:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Sorry. Next time I won't tell someone they are correct? Still confused... --
Jayron32 01:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Well, the ALL CAPS set the tone. That was unnecessary, unfriendly, and contrary to the advice we very frequently give to our OPs, not to shout at us. But that aside, those words themselves were sufficient. Or maybe "You are correct, there are no rules". Fine. But the final sentence "Get used to it", was the killer, particularly given the apparently unfriendly tone already set by the ALL CAPS. I wouldn't have been at all happy being on the receiving end. I know you speak plainly, sometimes bluntly, and that's OK. But this one missed the mark, mate. Or hit it rather too hard. It was quite reasonable for the OP to assume you were angry with them or were reacting to some offence they had caused. That's my take. --
Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 04:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Fair enough. We all fall short of expectations. I will work harder next time to ensure my intent is clearer. Because I certainly meant no harm; and if my words did not convey that, it is certainly a problem I need to work on. --
Jayron32 11:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I don't think it's a big problem at all. I'm sure this was unintentional. --
Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 12:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited
National Football League lore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page
Marc Wilson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the
FAQ • Join us at the
DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these
opt-out instructions. Thanks,
DPL bot (
talk) 09:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I really got confused..
68.100.172.139 (
talk) 02:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely keivan.f is biar122
we are sick and tired of these...
68.100.172.139 (
talk) 02:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Hello. I want to report this IP user who just reverts my edits without a clear reason. He's in an edit war with me now. Please take a look at
this, he removed a huge material with a little explanation. Also he adds unnecessary images that he likes to the articles of Ottoman consorts, for example
this one. These pictures have no purpose at all and take huge spaces. When I reverted his edits he accused me of vandalism. He also thinks that
I and User:Surtsicna are socks of Biar122. Keivan.fTalk 06:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I also reported him to
User:Ponyo. I think only administrators can solve these problems. Keivan.fTalk 16:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Please use
WP:ANI for help with this. --
Jayron32 17:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)reply
October 2014 Wikification Drive
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's
October Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by hundreds of 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 October 1, but you can still
sign up!
Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to
sign up for the
GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
J Milburn (
talk·contribs)
The ed17 (
talk·contribs) and
Miyagawa (
talk·contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Based on this
[4], could you please take a look at this
[5] discussion? For more insight, this
[6] discussion has also been taking place. Thank you. -- Winkelvi ● ✉✓ 02:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Sorry. I'm not interested in wading into politically charged arguments and expressing opinions that piss people off. I'm sure you can all work it out without me. --
Jayron32 02:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)reply
No problem. Thanks for the prompt reply. -- Winkelvi ● ✉✓ 02:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Disambiguation link notification for October 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited
Cuisine of New England, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page
Rutland, Vermont. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the
FAQ • Join us at the
DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these
opt-out instructions. Thanks,
DPL bot (
talk) 09:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Nope. Lived in several parts of the U.S., but that hasn't been one of them. --
Jayron32 04:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Moribund
Any thoughts on how to proceed with the "new" way of listing stuff? Your thoughts here were enlightening. Who maintains this new "master list"? You? Yikes.
Doctalk 06:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Not interested one way or the other. --
Jayron32 06:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Um, you are kinda interested, since you edited the policy page multiple times to reflect the new changes. Plausible deniability with extreme disinterest. I get it. It's fun dealing with the "powers that be". Cheers.
Doctalk 06:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)reply
There was a request to remove the redlinks, which I did. Otherwise, I don't have a strong attachment to any sort of resolution to the situation. You're free to find other people to work with who maybe have better ideas. I just don't have any. --
Jayron32 06:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Alright then. Sorry to bother you with this. Cheers :)
Doctalk 06:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm just posting to say that I was pinged by this discussion for some reason, though I'm not sure why as I have no connection other than that I once edited the page linked up above, but it was 2 diffs away from the one linked. That is a weird glitch if it is one.
—Soap— 17:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)reply
No idea. I didn't ping you. Must be a glitch or something. --
Jayron32 17:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)reply
No idea? Really? :-) The original edit transcluded
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse rather than linking to it, causing pings for anyone who had participated in that discussion via their user signatures. Due to the accidental transclusion, MediaWiki saw the original post here as including many links to many users.
This edit disabled the transclusion, while
this edit corrected the syntax to be as it was intended. This issue is tracked by
bugzilla:50082. --
MZMcBride (
talk) 03:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Blame Doc then. I saw the transclusion and disabled it, because I didn't need the entire page recreated here. He's the one who transcluded it in the first place. --
Jayron32 03:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Not blaming anyone and your edit was fine. (Sorry if I came across as suggesting otherwise.) The current pinging behavior with transclusions is a bit of a nasty trap on MediaWiki's part. I'm still not sure there's a clear answer to how to solve this particular problem, but if anyone has ideas about this, feel free to drop a comment on
bugzilla:50082.
Quiddity is perhaps correct about lowering the ping threshold. --
MZMcBride (
talk) 05:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)reply
58.164.175.36 (
talk·contribs). How deeply do I have to delve into that joke category to find a major problem? Who is that IP representing? How could anyone possibly know why that IP is a "banned user"? How many more are like that one? No way is that cat anywhere near "useful" as it is now.
Doctalk 06:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi, I noticed that with this edit
[7] you restored the work of blocked editor Newzealand123, who is blocked on EN-WP as well as Commons. Per
WP:EVASION any editor is allowed to delete material from blocked users such as NZ or accounts working on her behalf. I gave an explanation here
[8]. Maybe there is a misunderstanding. Could you please explain why you restored the work of a blocked, indeed highly disruptive editor? Would you like some more information from me on this case? Thanks.
Logical Cowboy (
talk) 22:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Logical Cowboy: Look, you are allowed to remove it if you choose to. You are not forced to remove it, nor is useful material forbidden from ever being at Wikipedia merely because the useful material was added by a banned user. Yes, removing it once was fine. No one complained that you removed it. Clarityfiend, in good faith, found the picture useful, and added it to the article. Once that's been done, it's Clarityfiend's edit you are removing, not whatever other user you've got a problem with. Clarityfiend doesn't have to defend his good faith edit here. If you have another reason to remove it besides a personal vendetta you have against one person, please tell Clarityfiend what is wrong with the picture he's using. If you don't have a reason besides "The first person who did this is blocked, so I must revert it forever", find something else to do, because you aren't making Wikipedia articles better. Again, tell Clarityfiend (not me) what is wrong with the picture itself (not the person who added it) and explain why you think the picture Clarityfiend added is wrong on it's own terms. Yes, you can remove edits from a banned editor. Clarityfiend is not banned, and so you need to take it up with them and explain to them why they cannot add the picture. And don't bring up the blocked issue because Clarityfiend isn't blocked. --
Jayron32 22:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi, thanks for the quick response. Actually I did take this up with paid editor Clarityfiend
[9] and he seemed to respond that he was okay with not restoring the picture from blocked editor NZ
[10]. He said that he was mainly deleting material and that he didn't intend to pursue this further. So I think there is a misunderstanding, you restored the material from the blocked editor NZ after paid editor Clarityfiend said he was fine with the deletion. Also, per
WP:EVASION, the issue is not whether paid editor Clarityfiend is blocked. He's not. The issue is whether paid editor Clarityfiend is editing as a "proxy" of a blocked editor. I think he is. NZ is a paid editor, paid by someone (call him X). Paid editor Clarityfiend was paid by someone, either NZ or X, once the sockpuppet of NZ was discovered. In either case, I see paid editor Clarityfiend as a proxy of NZ, either paid by her or paid by someone else to do her work. I hope this clears things up. Thanks again.
Logical Cowboy (
talk) 00:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)reply
OK. As long as you've followed up, I'm good with this. Toodles! --
Jayron32 11:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited
National Football League regular season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page
Doubleheader. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the
FAQ • Join us at the
DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these
opt-out instructions. Thanks,
DPL bot (
talk) 12:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)reply
WikiCup 2014: The results
The 2014 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (
submissions), who flew the flag of the
Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents. Cwmhiraeth (
submissions), 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles. Casliber (
submissions), WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.
A full list of our prize-winners follows:
Godot13 (
submissions) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 181 featured pictures in the final round.
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 65 did you knows in the final round.
Casliber (
submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for four featured articles in the final round.
ThaddeusB (
submissions) wins the news prize for 28 in the news articles in round 3.
Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
J Milburn (
talk·contribs)
The ed17 (
talk·contribs) and
Miyagawa (
talk·contribs) 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi Jay. I noticed you removed the PROD tag from the above article, stating that "WP:BALL does not apply. The event is not speculative, Wikipedia does have articles on scheduled future events if the event is notable.". Just a couple of clarifications needed:
1 - The event does not happen until October 2015. In that time a lot could happen, so how it could not be considered speculative is a little bit beyond me.
2 - How can an article, whose only reference is a link to the site that runs the competition, be considered notable?
Thanks in advance for your answers. --
Skamecrazy123 (
talk) 12:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)reply
1) Wikipedia has many articles on future events. I'll not insult your intelligence by linking to any of them. You can find many links to future elections, unreleased movies, upcoming sporting events, etc. The fact that the event has not happened yet is not reason to delete it; if that is you're threshold you'll be spending the next few months tagging thousands of articles and pissing off many people. I could think of more important ways to help Wikipedia improve than to see you running around hunting down every upcoming event and tagging it for deletion. 2) Notability is not a property of an article. Notability is the property of the subject of an article. A substandard article about a notable subject does not have to be deleted. It can either be improved by yourself, or left for someone else to improve. Deletion is only used for subjects whose article should never be at Wikipedia. If you genuinely think this competition is speculative and will not happen,
WP:AFD exists for you to use. I'd recommend against it, but I can't stop you from doing things merely because they are a bad idea. Have fun. --
Jayron32 01:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Unless you can see into the future and tell me whether or not this competition will definitely go ahead in October 2015, I don't see how it could be anything other than speculation at this point. I do not believe it is notable, for the reason I have given above, so I fully intend to take it to AfD and let the community have its say. If it fails then I will let the creator know I intend to move it into draft space until the event gets a lot closer. As an aside, thanks for insulting my intelligence twice by insinuating that I'm going to go gallivanting off deleting things left, right and centre, (both here and on the help page). It made me chuckle if nothing else. --
Skamecrazy123 (
talk) 01:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Skamecrazy123: I might say that I don't claim that the article should not be deleted per se. I don't know, maybe it should be. However, I take strong objection to your rationale that it should be deleted merely because it hasn't happened yet. If you are going to propose a deletion of an article, via PROD, AFD, or any other means, try a different method. If this article is deleted for a sound reason, I will not object, be upset, or anything else. Indeed, if a sound rationale can be proposed and defended, I may even support the deletion. But if your rationale is "it hasn't happened yet", that's a plainly incorrect reason to delete the article, if only because there are plenty of Wikipedia articles about events that haven't happened yet. If you start the AFD and claim it should be deleted merely because it hasn't happened yet, I would oppose. If you have some other sound rationale that has nothing to do with that particular rationale, you may find yourself a vote in your favor. It's not what you want to do here that I find a problem with. It's your faulty reasoning that is the problem. --
Jayron32 01:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)reply
The AfD is up, so comment on it as you will. If my reasoning is as flawed as you think it is, then it should be a pretty easy decision for the closing admin to make. --
Skamecrazy123 (
talk) 01:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi, you've been quoted at
this ANI. Given the iban between him and me, I also request that you as an admin formally notify the subject of my complaint. Thanks.
μηδείς (
talk) 21:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)reply
RD use
Re
this, the status-based double standard is breathtaking. When I hatted something because it was inappropriate use of RD, I got shouted down and accused of preaching, and got zero support on the issue at VPP. Very discouraging, and it's not hard to see how people become very cynical after some time at en-wiki. ‑‑
Mandruss☎ 15:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
You're upset with me because I agreed with you and redid the action you wanted done in the first place. I am totally confused. --
Jayron32 16:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm perplexed that you feel I wanted the thing hatted, after the first hat. Maybe it should have been taken to WT:RD, and I'll wear the blame for that, but it was still useful discussion as the guy clearly didn't understand what RD is about. He wasn't just trolling, as far as I could tell. He was confused, and understandably so because, as he showed with his link, the same topic was engaged by multiple experienced editors just a few months ago. So we set up an unclear and confusing situation and then react in a dismissive and condescending way with someone when they get confused. We'll talk to you about it in June, but if you come back in November and want to clarify something about the June disussion, you immediately get hatted. Then, if you don't immediately take no for an answer, you're worthy of scorn and get hatted again. How illogical is that? I'm still stuck on the hostile reaction to my hat—my attempt to do something about the unclear and confusing situation—and that's aggravated when I see the double standard. ‑‑
Mandruss☎ 16:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Sorry. When you said "I would suggest that you read it, and I have nothing else to say on this." I assumed you meant you had nothing else to say on it. I apologize for taking what you said and understanding it to mean exactly what you said. Next time, if you meant you had more to say, you shouldn't say you have nothing else to say. It's likely to confuse people like me. --
Jayron32 17:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
I wasn't aware that "I have nothing else to say" means "This deserves to be hatted." But you miss the essential point, which is that people shouldn't be faulted for being confused by the confusing situation we set up by not consistently observing RD instructions. If someone hats a debate/opinion discussion at RD, regardless of who they are, the hat should stand, the discussion should end, and that person certainly shouldn't be accused of "preaching". After awhile, people will learn that RD isn't for opinion discussions, even when the editors who happen to be around feel inclined to enter into one, and people like Pablo will no longer be confused. If this makes sense to you, you're free to support me at VPP, that hasn't been archived yet. ‑‑
Mandruss☎ 17:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
I, along with a couple other editors, am currently working to build
the Co-op. It is a new mentorship space we're working on and would be piloting in January and February. Our plan is to have experienced editors guide newcomers one-on-one based on how they wants to contribute to Wikipedia. We expect mentors to take no more than one or two editors each under them, so it wouldn't become a huge commitment at all. Your experience as an admin and at the Teahouse would be really helpful for us, especially because we plan to build the space as newcomer-friendly. If you're interesting in helping out, please
sign up here. If you have any questions about the space, I'll be happy to answer them so please feel free to let me know.
Cheers,
Soni (
talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 22:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)reply
As per your request
Feel quite free to call me various obscenities, as need be:
as need be.
μηδείς (
talk) 22:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)reply
I didn't expect that... --
Jayron32 23:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)reply
WikiCup 2015 is just around the corner...
Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.
We would like to announce that Josh (
J Milburn) and Ed (
The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (
Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (
Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (
Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the
GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.
Godot13 (
submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C,
Casliber (
submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance
Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles
Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and
Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.
Sven Manguard (
submissions) taking
Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to
12george1 (
submissions) and the
2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on
Maya Angelou's autobiographies from
Figureskatingfan (
submissions), a good article on the noted Czech footballer
Tomáš Rosický from
Cloudz679 (
submissions) and
a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of
Czar (
submissions) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
Adam Cuerden (
submissions) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
Sturmvogel 66 (
submissions), the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
Bloom6132 (
submissions), the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.
Matty.007 (
submissions),
ThaddeusB (
submissions),
WikiRedactor (
submissions),
Yellow Evan (
submissions),
Prism (
submissions) and
Caponer (
submissions) wins the FL prize for three featured lists in round 2.
