This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Would it be possible to undelete this page and move it to a sub-page of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claus Peter Poppe, say
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claus Peter Poppe/List? All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 17:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC).
I think you erred in deleting the Anavex_Life_Sciences article. There was no consensus. There were 3 delete votes with the convoluted reasoning that it failed their WP:MEDRS -- lots of circular logic involved. See this quote: "This very specifically applies to the making of claims that something will treat a human disease, on the basis of in vitro studies". This shows to me that this editor didn't very carefully look at the article. There were 2a trials, not in vitro studies, and there were *no claims in the article* that "something will treat a human disease".
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anavex_Life_Sciences
-- Agamemnus ( talk) 09:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Julian, your comment regarding deletion states "No persuasive arguments for keeping the article have been submitted." That is your judgement, not mine, and it is certainly not a consensus.
The recent grant to Anavex from the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research is a recent major improvement to notability, but not even close to the first. While it is true that a simple web search for "Anavex" turns up mostly vexatious stock newsletter type pages, a more careful search easily turns up references in magazines and TV news. I counted 20 of them less than a year old.
If you are not willing to reverse your imposition of judgement in lieu of consensus, I intend to appeal through Deletion Review.
When people come to Wikipedia with the question "What is Anavex?" they should be able to get an answer, no matter how basic. JD Lambert( T| C) 23:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Your last statement is all sorts of false, by the way. We're under absolutely no obligation to answer every question somebody might ask. Respectfully, – Juliancolton | Talk 23:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand that you don't want to bother tagging the additional articles (which I don't think should have ever been brought into the AfD) but the consensus to merge appears very clear... If anything, it should close as merge and you can throw out the other articles, which no one bothered to discuss – czar 04:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors August 2015 Newsletter
July drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 24 people who signed up, 17 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. August blitz: The one-week April blitz, targeting biographical articles that have been tagged for copy editing for over a year, will run from August 16–22. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the article list on the blitz page. Sign up here! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis, and Pax85. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
Julian, you've got 1547 characters at the moment ... the max agt TFA (so far) is 1300. Can you trim a bit? - Dank ( push to talk) 18:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
11:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Please review WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and do not remove information supported by a citation from a reliable source in order to "bring it into line" with a Wikipedia article. BMK ( talk) 20:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Juliancolton, The article Toradex meets the basic notability criteria as per WP:HEYMANN along with sufficient references. The article has undergone extensive rewriting during the second AFD to meet the Wikipedia guidelines. The article sustained both 2nd AFD and DRV with Keep and Endorse. The article was also updated later with minor content changes which included new citations. But the article was re-nominated for deletion with a short notice of time from the previous AFD. Please review the article and its citation again, and kindly provide us the chance to enhance the article score further by adding more notable resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suniltx ( talk • contribs) 12:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I would prefer you overturn this to no consensus. Wikipedia not a vote but looking at the stats:
The argument based rational is that sources show very clearly this topic is notable the only thing that cannot be agree is the name. In fact I was able to change the opinion two editors Chillum and LaMona. There was also canvassing in favor for delete based on this thread [2]. Do you feel this is better closed as no consensus? I would prefer this be changed without going through DRV is this reasonable? Valoem talk contrib 03:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Post-2009 Pacific hurricane seasons. Since you had some involvement with the Post-2009 Pacific hurricane seasons redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, according to due process, "before listing a review request discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first". I ask that you take steps to undelete the page because there was no real consensus on the deletion and, in fact, alternatives were even being proposed. Discussions on those have been hampered by your untimely intervention. Moreover, your deletion was based on Wikipedia:NOTPAPER without you giving any opportunity to address this new ground and I also note that the original deletion proponent introduced Wikipedia:PROMO without any substantive basis and, again, without any opportunity to address that either. Please confirm your intentions without delay as a review will otherwise be swiftly sought, just as you swiftly moved to delete the article. Thanks CtrlXctrlV ( talk) 14:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Second, deletion discussions (including AfDs) remain open for comments for seven days. This one had been bumped to the "old" debates page, and required some sort of action to clear the backlog. Relisting is generally reserved for debates where participation has been low or where consensus is in the process of being swayed. There were plenty of thorough comments, but relatively few in the hours and days just prior to closure, so relisting was not appropriate in my view. In light of that, somebody had to close the debate one way or another, so nothing was done any more or less "swiftly" than is typical. Was anybody in the middle of making their case? Not that I can tell.
Third, my deletion was most certainly not based on WP:NOTPAPER. I said "I sympathize with the WP:NOTPAPER sentiment", meaning that it struck my as a potentially persuasive arguments for keeping the page; I've been an inclusionist for as long as I've been editing Wikipedia, and believe that almanac-like content has as much place here as anything. As for not having time to address WP:PROMO concerns, The359 suggested on August 20 UTC (or about five days before my closure) that "The only coverage is from Mercedes themselves promoting their latest and greatest model." How long did you need? Several editors noted that the model of a car has no bearing on its role as the safety vehicle, especially when the cars were overwhelmingly provided by one manufacturer. Even the most innocuous lists need to meet the general notability guidelines, and here we have an absence of sources to show why the model of a safety car is important (and not just what the model was in a given year).
Additionally, your... erm, solicitation of comments from people who had previously sided with you on previous debates was highly inappropriate, and weakened your case to some degree. The moderator/administrator Roche has sided with me [...] But I am sure it won't be enough. If you have time or interest, would value your view too constitutes pretty blatant canvassing.
I see nothing to suggest that my gauging of consensus was wrong, but perhaps slightly ambitious. I hope we can arrive at an understanding without the need for deletion review, but if you're completely dissatisfied with my explanation here, I won't require you to respond before listing the debate for review. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
....abuse the thank feature as you did here. The feature is not there for people to antagonise others. As an administrator, I'd expect better from you. Or perhaps not. Cassianto Talk 20:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry Julian, you cannot keep everyone happy, not even you can manage that. I enjoyed this thread so much I wanted to thank the people involved... then I decided not to. Chillum 21:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I think I'm done arguing about the merits of my thanks; as Tarc noted, this has been an exceedingly unproductive discussion. I'll be more than glad to discuss my RfA vote, my views on the institution of adminship, or even any concerns you may have with my performance as an admin (I'm not sure how to interpret the "or perhaps not" bit at the top of this thread). I can only hope that you don't hold me in contempt for what I had intended as a sincere gesture. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Why are you talking about it if you don't want to talk about it? I am happy that my actions were in line with policy that day, I don't believe you have any right to secret unblock requests. If you want to talk about me you can do so here, not here. Chillum 23:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Toradex. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Suniltx ( talk) 10:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.
In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Casliber ( submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Coemgenus ( submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.
The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.
Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!
Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs), Miyagawa ( talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles's
2015 GA Cup - Round 3
Greetings, all! We hope that everyone had a nice summer. Saturday saw the end of Round 2. Things went relatively smoothly this month. The top 2 from 4 pools, plus the top participant (the wildcard, or "9th place") of all remaining competitors, moved onto Round 3. We had one withdrawal early in Round 2, so he was replaced by the next-highest scorer from Round 1. Round 2's highest scorer was Pool D's Tomandjerry211, who earned an impressive 366 points; he also reviewed the most articles (19). Close behind was Zwerg Nase, also in Pool D, at 297 points and 16 articles. The wildcard slot went to Good888. Congrats to all! Round 3 will have 9 competitors in 3 pools. The key to moving forward was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates, as it has been in every round up to now. For example, 2 competitors only needed to review 2 articles each to win in their pools, and each article were either from the pink nomination box (20 points) or had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup continues to be a success in many ways, even with fewer competitors this time. For some reason, the competitors in the 2015 GA Cup have reviewed fewer articles in Round 2, which has made the judges scratch their head in confusion. We've speculated many reasons for that: the summer months and vacations, our competitors are saving their strength for the final rounds, or they all live in the Pacific Northwest and the heavy wildfire smoke has affected their thinking. Whatever the reason, Round 2 competitors reviewed almost 100 articles, which is a significant impact in the task of reviewing articles for GA status. We've considered that the lower participation this competition is due to timing, so we intend to discuss the best time frame for future GA Cups. For Round 3, participants have been placed randomly in 3 pools of 3 contestants each; the top editor in each pool will progress, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on September 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on September 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Good luck to the remaining contestants, and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to
our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Good articles by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton ( talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello there. Nothing serious, but wanted to make note that while you are idling in IRC, your nick joins/parts numerous number of times. It's getting real messy. You might wanna fix that. Cheers and Regards— ☮ JAaron95 Talk 09:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
Julian,
I don't know if you are still like to work on the Signpost article on Featured Content but this week's edition has just been posted, if you would like to help with some descriptions or resizing photos:
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-10-07/Featured content. Thanks for your help!
Liz
Read!
Talk!
16:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
re: this. Looked in the mirror lately? :P — Ched : ? 04:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, JC. Quick follow-up . . . you're right, we were starting a philosophical tangent in the middle of TAP's RfA discussion. In short, I strongly believe that an RfA candidate's demonstrated understanding of the notability and deletion guidelines is a key criteria in evaluating a nominee's suitability to be an admin. A sound, mainstream understanding of these areas is fundamental to an admin's typical, every-day duties. Completely unsuitable topics of no importance may be speedily deleted, and so may other narrowly defined classes of unsuitable articles. That's a pretty powerful button to have, even if narrowly restricted in its use, and we ought to have some confidence in the candidate's understanding of the guidelines. Moreover, the guidelines are guidelines, not laws without exceptions. We may advocate for inclusion of encyclopedia content, even when the subject may not technically satisfy the notability guidelines. I see that as an IAR scenario, but advocates need to have a better argument than "oh, I think that's important." People often forget the key element of IAR: that ignoring the "rules" in a given case must improve the encyclopedia in a material way. Shouting IAR! is not the end of the analysis.
I regularly participate in AfDs in the subject areas in which I edit. Most AfD participants kinda-sorta get it, but the depth of their understanding of the guideline criteria (and their underlying purposes) is often shallow. I also readily recognize how a wannabe admin can easily rack up impressive percentage stats by simply voting "me too" in AfDs where the pending outcome is readily apparent. Over half of my edits are in Olympic and American college sports, and I could easily rack up another 250+ AfD votes per year by simply voting the same way as User:GiantSnowman in association football/soccer-related AfD discussions. I choose not to be a me-too AfD voter, however, and I am proud of the fact that my well-expressed opinions are often one of the primary reasons for the consensus outcome of well-argued (and sometimes hotly contested) AfDs. I expect good RfA candidates to be able to argue the merits, not pick the winning side. That said, there is also an obvious difference between evaluating consensus as a closing admin and advocating an outcome as an AfD discussion participant. Admins don't get to put their thumb on the scale, so to speak, when they are evaluating consensus and closing AfDs. I would hesitate to give that responsibility to anyone who votes in the mainstream any less than 80% of the time (maybe 70%, if they have shown a strong learning curve in their comments). Editors who are ideological deletionists or inclusionists make bad closers; if an admin feels strongly about an AfD outcome, it is better they participate in the AfD discussion, rather than trying to close it. I want admins who understand the guidelines, understand the admin's role in closings, and don't waste editors' time with bad decisions that set bad precedents or lead to contentious DRVs.
That's where I'm coming from. And I get your point about shallow analysis of RfA candidates solely on the basis of percentages. It's a function of "lies, damned lies and statistics," as the old saw goes. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 22:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I guess this is all to say that we should remember to distinguish "contrarian" from "incompetent". I've closed a lot of AfDs (somewhere in the ballpark of 7,000, apparently... yikes), and I've found that my job is easier when somebody prompts other participants to expound their arguments and take a second look at the page in question; it makes me more certain that I'm making the right call, and not just pressing buttons on behalf of whoever happened to scroll through that week. For as seldom as I find myself in agreement with User:Andrew Davidson, I really do think he was right to suggest that "dissent should be encouraged." Not sure I've said anything new here, but seeing as it's a pretty minor issue so far, I'm not too concerned. :-) – Juliancolton | Talk 00:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Can you please userfy this again for me plus talk page? Someone recreated this article Incels which only covers the non notable fringe concept. I would gladly nominate this for deletion myself, but would like established editors to compared the differences between this garbage and what I was trying to restore. Thanks! Valoem talk contrib 23:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello Julian! Could you explain me why Wings For Life World Run has been deleted and why it doesn't meet the notability's criteria?
Red Bull broadcasts the race through the internet and it has several notable performers like José Manuel Martínez, Michael Wardian, Giorgio Calcaterra, Simon Munyutu, Crisanto Grajales, Coolboy Ngamole, Lyne Bessette, Žana Jereb or Svetlana Șepelev-Tcaci.
Best regards, -- Pablovp ( talk) 10:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please do not mention me again in an arena where I'm not allowed to reply to you. Eric Corbett 22:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
(Typed before edit conflict) RfA is a discussion, not a vote, I have the right to question anybody's assertions, as well as the right to cite and discuss in good faith any active article, userpage, or contributor. There's absolutely no policy against making a factual and universally verifiable statement. I had no idea that Eric was outright prohibited from responding to comments until after his message here (I took "I will simply say..." to mean that he merely had no interest in responding, which would have been understandable), but I don't believe it changes anything. I've already apologized to Eric and offered to make it up to him, but I really must disagree on the implied severity of my transgression, and I know that you and he don't genuinely believe any good can come out of a sniveling and saccharine apology. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
You could use my user page as an example, listing work on articles, reviewing, etc. I have been called many things including monster, but never hat-collector. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors October 2015 Newsletter
September drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 25 editors who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. October blitz: The one-week October blitz, targeting requests, has just concluded. Of the nine editors who signed up, seven copyedited at least one request; check your talk page for your barnstar! The month-long November drive, focusing on our oldest backlog articles (June, July, and August 2014) and the October requests, is just around the corner. Hope to see you there! Thanks again for your support; together, we can improve the encyclopedia! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis and Pax85. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Julian, I was interested to see your response to my comment on women's history on the main page discussion board go up ..... and then come down again 20 minutes later. Feel free to continue the discussion if you like. It would be interesting to hear an administrator's perspective on why women are so under-represented in Wikipedia and on the showcase of the main page. Cheers, MurielMary ( talk) 01:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)MurielMary
Sir, can I use the WP:Twinkle tool without having rollback rights?-- IllusIon ( talk) 19:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. Can I use all its options? E.g. reverting vandalism as I did here or here (2 edits at the same time)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IllusIon ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The article Tropical Storm Ana (2015) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Tropical Storm Ana (2015) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cyclonebiskit -- Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 18:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The Minor Barnstar | ||
Although you did not make the top 16 of Round 1, you did participate and you still deserve a barnstar. Thank you so much for being a part of the 2nd Annual GA Cup and we hope to see you next year! MrWooHoo ( talk) 23:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hurricane Fay (2014), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tropical Storm Fay ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.
This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is Godot13 ( submissions) ( FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. Cas Liber ( submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.
Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to Rationalobserver ( submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.
A full list of our award winners are:
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 2016 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.
Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa ( talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello: Just a note that I have created a new user box for WikiProject Deletion sorting members, located at {{ WikiProject Deletion sorting user box}}. Feel free to include it on your user pages if you'd like. Cheers, North America 1000 10:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hurricane Emily (1987), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Royal Gazette ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
The AfD is a disaster because a sock farm tried to create an article which had already been deleted. If you check it the editors for restoring the original deletion were all experienced editors on philosophy articles. Only one editor with any other experience supported it. There are very view editors active on philosophy articles and I suspect they all expected the sock strategy to be self-evident to any closing admin. I appreciate there is a huge backlog and it may not have been evident on a quick read. However most of the editors who are active on philosophy articles are exhausted by the multiple disruptive edits on free will issues - the permanent banning of Brews O'Hare reduced that issue a bit but then we got the Polish sock farm.
If you check of those for retention only VictoriaGrayson had any other track record of editing. Excluding the deleted socks the only other votes for were Piotrniz previous blocked for creating socks on this issue and Owlcool for whom the vote here was his/her only ever edit. I've nominated it for speedy delete as it was recreated by a sock puppet, but it would be nice if you could take another look. I realise the life of an admin trying to clear a backlog makes if difficult to get into the detail. But please also appreciate that this is a subject area with very few qualified and active editors, but a huge amount of patrolling to do ---- Snowded TALK 04:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For plowing through some of the massive backlog at AFD, and closing nearly 100 discussions, I hereby award Juliancolton this nifty bronze badge with a dirty mop on it! Treasure it dearly, my friend. ~ Cyclonebiskit ( chat) 04:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC) |
Juliancolton, I've noticed that you have deleted the talk page for this existing article. May I ask why? Savvyjack23 ( talk) 06:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Juliancolton,
I'd like to thank you for closing a bunch of backlogged AfDs today. Your effort in closing the debates is commendable. With kind regards, Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 10:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Folklore Museum of Velventos. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - PanchoS ( talk) 02:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Why was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical Role closed as delete? — 烏Γ ( kaw) │ 02:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Beyond Unbroken. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Teddy2Gloves (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Juliancolton Why did you delete this page? There were all needed sources, as internal (wiki articles), as well as external.
Hi Julian, just wondering why you deleted Compa's artist page? I believe it was a question of notability. After speaking to a representative just now via the Wikipedia Chat feature, I was directed to the 'Undelete' page where I have requested the page be restored. Compa has had features, interviews and reviews in many notable and well-respected international publications such as Mixmag, Wire Magazine, DJ Mag, FACT Magazine, GQ Magazine, Resident Advisor etc. on top of touring worldwide over the last few years taking in Asia, Europe and North and South America and is a credible music producer. I'd like to request the artist page be restored please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dottedclover ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Julian. Can you please restore the deleted content into my userspace so I can get the page updated, cited, and released back into the wild? Thank you so much for your help!
DATCAM ( talk) 01:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You made a bad judgement with that one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea if you seen my reply in my talk page, but I just copied it here so you can see it.
Thank you and sorry that I forgot about the "Wiki is not a crystal ball" thing, I completely forgot about it. Someone should've told me this one to two years ago when I made the 2014 and 2015 seasons really early as Nov 2013 and 2014. However, according to some users, the 2016 PTS article should be created just days before the start of 2016 because that basin never ends FYI. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there -- on November 14, you closed the AfD discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women and Minorities in Law Enforcement. In your closing remarks, you indicated that consensus favored deletion. However, the article Women and Minorities in Law Enforcement has not yet been deleted. Can you please delete the page pursuant to the deletion discussion? Thanks, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 01:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to start reviewing articles for GA status. I have a few dumb questions and need some overall help. Can you be my mentor? Then I can be a mentee, but I prefer to be called a mento. Thanks! —Мандичка YO 😜 18:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Involuntary celibacy. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Valoem talk contrib 17:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.
After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine ( User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason ( User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew ( User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.
We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.
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. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.
If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk), Figureskatingfan ( talk), and Godot13 ( talk).-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, Julian, and may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 06:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Warmest Wishes for Health, Wealth and Wisdom through the Holidays and the Coming Year! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect A.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.i.j.k.l.m.n.o.p.q.r.s.t.u.v.w.x.y.z.. Since you had some involvement with the A.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.i.j.k.l.m.n.o.p.q.r.s.t.u.v.w.x.y.z. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- BDD ( talk) 05:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Savvyjack23 (
talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Savvyjack23 ( talk) 06:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Just to double check what you said for our talk about this problem last month. You said to create the 2016 seasons if there is already some information, like seasonal forecasts or first storm, right? So therefore, the 2016 Atlantic season article is created. I have know idea why the 2016 PHS article is created, however we have a timeline showing 09C which dissipated few days ago this year. And what Jason Rees said is that to include the storm in the timeline if spanned 2 calendars. The 2016 PTS article should definitely be created as me and some users agreed with this because the WPac basin is a 'never-ending' season. The 2016 Nio season, I have no idea about that, but me and LightandDark2000 have agreed to create the article because the season officially starts on January. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors 2015 End of Year Report
Our
2015 End of Year Report is now ready for review.
Highlights:
– Your project coordinators:
Jonesey95,
Miniapolis and
Baffle gab1978.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
Jonesey95 via
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
17:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
|
We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.
We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.
We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Julian, you're the nom on this one. I'll get to this one tonight, feel free to edit it. - Dank ( push to talk) 22:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited December 1969 nor'easter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:TFAP. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:TFAP redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. sst ✈ 17:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
If so, you should be firmiliar with WP:SEEALSO. If not, please read it, thank you, -- Malerooster ( talk) 05:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense.There are no concrete rules on this site, every policy is a guideline and WP:IAR can be applied as needed. I think after about a decade of writing on the site, Juliancolton is more than aware of what he's doing with his edits. ~ Cyclonebiskit ( chat) 05:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited December 1969 nor'easter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glaze ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Precious again, your proud article, a winter storm "which completely cut off some communities from the rest of the world, and proved victorious over snow removal equipment"!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey,
I saw that you would be willing to nominate users to become an administrator. I'm fairly new to wikipedia, but have really been enjoying working on counter-vandalism. If you could nominate me, I'd really appreciate it.
Schuddeboomw ( talk) 16:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award | |
Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 22:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC) |
Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 3rd GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been two GA Cups; both were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 500 nominations listed and about 450 articles waiting to be reviewed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 3rd GA Cup will begin on March 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on July 31, 2016), but this may change based on participant numbers. There will be slight changes to the scoring system, based upon feedback we've received in the months since GA Cup #2. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same. We're also looking to spice up the competition a bit by running parallel competitions. Finally, there's a possibility of assisting a WikiProject Good Articles backlog drive in the last three weeks of February, before our competition. Please stay tuned for more information as we get it. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on February 20, 2015. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to
our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
hurricanes | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 407 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.
Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by Cyclonebiskit ( submissions), and two each by MPJ-DK ( submissions), Hurricanehink ( submissions), 12george1 ( submissions), and Cas Liber ( submissions). Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by Adam Cuerden ( submissions) (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by Cwmhiraeth ( submissions). Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with J Milburn ( submissions) completing nine.
If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 ( talk · contribs · email) -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles's
2016 GA Cup - Round 1
Greetings, all. The 3rd Annual GA Cup has officially begun, and you can start reviewing your articles/reassessments now! However, sign-ups will not close til March 15th if anybody (who wishes to sign up) has not signed up yet. We currently have 1 group of 33 contestants in Round 1, and we will have 16 Wikipedians left in Round 2. Please be sure to review this information and the FAQ if you haven't already, If you have any questions, please ask us here where all of the judges (including our newest one, Zwerg Nase!) will be answering any questions you may have. You can also feel free to ask us on our talk pages/send an email to us (information is here). Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to
our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that Cas Liber ( submissions) claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 ( talk · contribs · email).-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles's
2016 GA Cup - Round 1
Greetings, GA Cup competitors! Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. Sainsf took out Round 1 with an amazing score of 765. In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 742 points, and in third place, FunkMonk received 610 points. In Round 1, 206 reviews were completed, more than any other year! At the beginning of March, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 490. We continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 2 so we can lower the backlog as much as possible. To qualify for the second round, you needed to make it into the top 16 of participants. Users were placed in 4 random pools of 4. To qualify for Round 3, the top 2 in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 9th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 2 will start on April 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on April 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here Also, remember that a major rule change will go into effect starting on April 1, which marks the beginning of Round Two. Round 1 had an issue brought up in the rules, which we are correcting with this clarification. We believe that this change will make the competition more inherently fair. The new rule is: All reviews must give the nominator (or anyone else willing to improve the article) time to address the issues at hand, even if the article would qualify for what is usually called a "quick fail" in GA terms. To avoid further confusion, we have updated the scoring page, replacing the term "quick fail" with the term "fail without granting time for improvements". We expect all reviewers to put a review on hold for seven days in cases such as these as well, in order to apply the same standards to every competitor. The judges will strictly enforce this new rule. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to
our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you could help produce a few articles towards this in April? The idea is that people can use the Amazon vouchers to buy books for their future projects. I'm sure the getting articles to GA is compatible with the WikiCup too!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
HurricaneGonzalo has engaged in highly unprofessional behavior previously as well. A quick glance at his/her editing history (notably here and here, before I cleaned those pages up) will be quite unflattering. A sense of the volume of spurious, unsubstantiated information that this user provided can be gleaned from his/her corrections. I gave him/her the benefit of the doubt, but this person clearly has not learned the finer points of etiquette, much less the requisite research skills for an encyclopedia. I recommend that s/he be blocked from editing articles on Wikipedia, especially severe weather-related ones. CapeVerdeWave ( talk) 02:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter
March drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 28 people who signed up, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April blitz: The one-week April blitz, again targeting our long requests list, will run from April 17–23. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the requests page. Sign up here! May drive: The month-long May backlog-reduction drive, with extra credit for articles tagged in March, April, and May 2015, and all request articles, begins May 1. Sign up now! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis, and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I am interested in reinstating a page for actor Jacob Kemp which Wikipedia said you deleted. At the time of the page's deletion, the reason for removal was the actor's "lack of notability." In the time since then, he has filmed two appearances on a popular Comedy Central series, wrapped a role in a major motion picture to be released on Christmas, and been nominated for an award for his performance in a national touring production. Is this enough to warrant a re-make of the page or should I wait? QuatrePourToi ( talk) 20:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Precious again, your 1994 Atlantic hurricane season with the short nomination statement!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Julian. The TFA text mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? - Dank ( push to talk) 22:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey Julian, long time no talk! Hope things are going well for you. Not sure if you saw NHC's tweet, but Joaquin got the axe and your name will be in its stead for the 2021 season. Just figured you might like to know. -- Dylan620 ( I'm all ears) 02:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I am an enthusiastic teen who wants to change the general opinion of my country that wikipedia contains irrelevant information which is not up to date. I believe that i can edit the irrlevant information and prove that wikipedia contains highly accurate information. Hope you agree to my enthusiasm. Syed Wasiq Hussain 10:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Wasiq ( talk • contribs)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you are the deleting administrator for the page Innovative Vector Control Consortium: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Innovative_Vector_Control_Consortium&action=edit&redlink=1
I would like to improve and republish the page (because I think it is now notable). Could I receive a copy of the pre-deletion source of the page (perhaps in my username space)? Thanks. Riceissa ( talk) 23:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles's
2016 GA Cup - Round 3
Hello, GA Cup competitors! Thursday saw the end of Round 2. Sainsf once again took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 996 (a higher score then he received in Round 1!). In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 541 points, and in third place, Carbrera received 419 points. In Round 2, 142 reviews were completed! At the beginning of April, there were 486 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 384. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [3]; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months. [4] It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep lowering the backlog as much as possible. To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. We had an unusual occurrence happen in Round 2: because only one contestant submitted reviews in one pool, we selected the contestant with the next highest score to move forward to Round 3. (There will be a rule change for future competitions in case something like this happens again.) For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 will start on May 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on May 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to
our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.
Round 2 saw three FAs (two by Cas Liber ( submissions) and one by Montanabw ( submissions)), four Featured Lists (with three by Calvin999 ( submissions)), and 53 Good Articles (six by Worm That Turned ( submissions) and five each by Hurricanehink ( submissions), Cwmhiraeth ( submissions), and MPJ-DK ( submissions)). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by Adam Cuerden ( submissions) and five by Godot13 ( submissions)). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135. Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) scored 265 base points, while The C of E ( submissions) and MPJ-DK ( submissions) each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with MPJ-DK ( submissions) completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) and Cas Liber ( submissions), broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.
If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 ( talk · contribs · email) -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles's
2016 GA Cup - Round 3
Hello, GA Cup competitors! It has been brought to our attention that we made a mistake in the last newsletter. In the last newsletter, we said that the "4th place" overall would make the Final along with the top user from each pool. However, the users who will advance will be the top user from each pool along with "4th and 5th place" overall. We apologize for any inconvenience or confusion that we caused. Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to
our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The article Preliminary report has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Pam
D
20:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Nice to see your name around occasionally. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC) |
WikiProject Good Articles's
2016 GA Cup - Round 3
Hello, GA Cup competitors! Tuesday saw the end of Round 3. Sainsf, for the third time, won with a sizable 487 points and a shocking 29 articles reviewed. In second, MPJ-DK had 168 points and 7 reviewed articles. In second place, MPJ-DK earned 168 points with just 7 articles, and in third place, Carbrera received 137 points with just 9 articles. Our two wildcard slots went to J Milburn with 122 points and Sturmvogel 66 with 101 points. In Round 3, 65 reviews were completed! At the beginning of the GA Cup, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 3, there were 394. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of the GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [5]; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months [6]—nothing before 2016. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Finals for the GA Cup so that are successes continue. To qualify for the Finals, contestants had to earn the highest scores in each of the three pools in Round 3; plus, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users in all of the pools. For the Finals, users were placed in one pool of the remaining five users. To win the GA Cup, you must have the most points. The Finals started on June 1 at 0:00:01 UTC' and end on June 30 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about the Finals and the pools can be found here. A clarification: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We wish all the contestants the best of luck! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to
our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
12:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors June 2016 News
Hello everyone, welcome to the June 2016 GOCE newsletter. It's been a few months since we sent one out; we hope y'all haven't forgotten about the Guild! Your coordinators have been busy behind the scenes as usual, though real life has a habit of reducing our personal wiki-time. The May backlog reduction drive, the usual coordinating tasks and preparations for the June election are keeping us on our toes! May drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's record-setting backlog reduction drive. Of the 29 people who signed up, 16 copyedited at least one article, 197 copyedits were recorded on the drive page, and the copyedit backlog fell below 1,500 for the first time! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. June Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz will occur from 12 June through 18 June; the themes will be video games and Asian geography. Coordinator elections: It's election time again; how quickly they seem to roll around! Nominations for the next tranche of Guild coordinators, who will serve a six-month term that begins at 00:01 UTC on 1 July and ends at 23:59 UTC on 31 December, opens at 00:01 UTC on 1 June and closes at 23:59 UTC on 15 June. Voting takes place between 00:01 UTC on 16 June and 23:59 UTC on 30 June. If you'd like to assist behind the scenes, please consider stepping forward; self-nominations are welcomed and encouraged. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are eligible; remember it's your Guild, and it doesn't run itself! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Juliancolton. I see you deleted Stephen Bailey; could you please restore it to because he is a comedian who has made several appearances on panel shows recently, and I want to know if there is anything there I can use to construct an article on the man? If it is too big, post it to User:Launchballer/Stephen Bailey. Thank you.-- Laun chba ller 12:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Julian. This was one of yours ... thoughts? - Dank ( push to talk) 00:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors July 2016 News
Hello everyone, and welcome to the July 2016 GOCE newsletter. June Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 12 through 18 June; the themes were video games and Asian geography. Of the 18 editors who signed up, 11 removed 47 articles from the backlog. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part. Coordinator elections: The second tranche of Guild coordinators for 2016, who will serve a six-month term until 23:59 UTC on 31 December, have been elected. Jonesey95 remains as your drama-free Lead Coordinator, and Corinne and Tdslk are your new assistant coordinators. For her long service to the Guild, Miniapolis has been enrolled in the GOCE Hall of Fame. Thanks to everyone who voted in the election; our next scheduled one occurs in December 2016. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are eligible; self-nominations are welcome and encouraged. July Drive: Our month-long July Copy Editing Backlog Elimination Drive is now underway. Our aim is to remove articles tagged for copy-edit in April, May and June 2015, and to complete all requests on the GOCE Requests page from June 2016. The drive ends at 23:59 on 31 July 2016 (UTC). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdlsk. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles's
2016 GA Cup - Final/Wrap-Up
Hello to our truly awesome GA Cup competitors! Thursday, June 30 saw the end of the 2016 GA Cup. It was a huge success. In the final, our five competitors reviewed an astonishing 207 articles, the most in any GA Cup final thus far. We continue to reach our goals and make a substantial impact in how quickly articles are reviewed for GA status. On March 1, the start of this competition, the article longest in the queue had languished there since June 26, 2015 [7]; in the July 1, 2016 list, the average wait length is just four months [8]. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for their enthusiasm, and for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success. Remember that most articles can't even be considered for FA status unless it's been passed to GA first, so our efforts have created hundreds of potentials FAs. That is, as they say, a big deal. The final this time represented a real horse race between our 1st and 2nd place winners. First-time competitor (who had won all previous rounds) Sainsf earned an impressive 1456 points with 91 articles reviewed during the final. Close behind, in second place was Carbrera, also a first-time competitor, reviewed the most articles (94). Their enthusiasm was a treat to witness. Congrats to you both! The competition went relatively smoothly, with very little drama this time. We had to clarify one rule: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We were strict about adhering to this clarification, especially at the end of the final. We intend on stressing it in the stated rules for our next competition, which will be announced soon, so watch out for it. We also intend on applying for a grant through Wikimedia to include gift certificates for our winners, to further incentivize the GA Cup. MrWooHoo should receive special recognition for acting as our main judge, and for stepping in for the rest of the judges when real-life busyness took over. He reviewed the majority of the submissions during our final round. Thanks for your hard work, and for the hard work of all our judges. We look forward to the next competition. Again, thanks to all our competitors, and congrats to our winners. Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to
our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Juliancolton, I wanted to alert you to an occurrence this evening, since you were involved the last time.
N-C16, who under an earlier name had run into issues with multiple GA reviews of tropical cyclone-related articles (see User talk:N-C16 for details, including your offer of mentorship), this evening made a bulk nomination of 29 articles for GAN, plus one at FAC. I posted to request that the GA nominations stop, as they were against the rules. (The FAC had not been made when I wrote the message.)
None of these articles were ones that N-C16 had previously done any work on that I could tell, the bulk of them were rated C-class or below, and after carefully checking the first five before reverting the GANs, I went ahead and reverted the remaining two dozen; GANs are not supposed to be made as drive-bys until the person wanting to nominate the articles has checked on the article talk page with the significant contributors to the article to make sure they think it's ready to be nominated. I also posted to the FAC page that the nomination was not by an article contributor; for FAC, it's a requirement that a major contributor be the nominator, so I expect that will be closed forthwith. (Follow-up on July 26: the FAC page was subsequently deleted as out of process, and a note posted to N-C16's page.)
Sorry to bother you, but I thought you should know. With any luck, with the talk-page warning posted, the GANs will cease. BlueMoonset ( talk) 06:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:NY 292 near Whaley Lake.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 09:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
07:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Cloudchased ( talk) 20:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.
Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton ( talk) 20:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News
Hello everyone, and welcome to the September 2016 GOCE newsletter. >>> Sign up for the September Drive, already in progress! <<< July Drive: The July drive was a roaring success. We set out to remove April, May, and June 2015 from our backlog (our 149 oldest articles), and by 23 July, we were done with those months. We added July 2015 (66 articles) and copy-edited 37 of those. We also handled all of the remaining Requests from June 2016. Well done! Overall, we recorded copy edits to 240 articles by 20 editors, reducing our total backlog to 13 months and 1,656 articles, the second-lowest month-end total ever. August Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 21 through 27 August; the theme was sports-related articles in honor of the 2016 Summer Olympics. Of the eight editors who signed up, five editors removed 11 articles from the backlog. A quiet blitz – everyone must be on vacation. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdlsk. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Juliancolton. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review
the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators'
mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
A dedicated venue for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also proposed has been created. See: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on October 31, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to
our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
14:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Typhoon Mujigae (2009). Since you had some involvement with the Typhoon Mujigae (2009) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. N-C16 ( talk) 08:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:
In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:
Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 ( talk · contribs · email)
Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to
our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to
our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
11:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Juliancolton.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello JulianColton,
In August, you deleted a page I started about Justin Haskins, a person I believe to be a notable author and conservative pundit. The deletion page can be found here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Justin_Haskins
I'm writing to you because I believe the subject's recent successes warrant his inclusion and a reversal of the decision to delete. The primary reason for deletion was the subject was not considered "notable." However, since the deletion, the subject has become a regular contributor for the Washington Examiner, a syndicated columnist with Inside Sources (a syndicator), and he was named one of the "Top 30 Conservatives Under 30" (see link here: http://redalertpolitics.com/thirty-under-thirty-2016/justin-haskins/).
He's also been published by highly notable publications, such as Forbes, Wall Street Journal, and others. I think this, along with the subject's position at a notable, albeit somewhat infamous, think tank, ought to qualify him as "notable."
Thanks for your time.
-LibertyEditor — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibertyEditor ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Juliancolton. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Greetings, GA Cup competitors! November 28, 2016 was supposed to mark the end of the first round. However, we needed 16 competitors to move on, and currently only 10 have completed articles. Thus, the judges have come together to let the participants decide what we shall do. Please complete this quick survey to let us know whether you would like a holiday break. There will be two options for what we will do next in terms of Round 2 depending on the results of this poll.
We apologize for sending out this newsletter late. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase! To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to
our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News
Hello everyone, and welcome to the December 2016 GOCE newsletter. We had an October newsletter all set to go, but it looks like we never pushed the button to deliver it, so this one contains a few months of updates. We have been busy and successful! Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: Nominations are open for election of Coordinators for the first half of 2017. Please visit the election page to nominate yourself or another editor, and then return after December 15 to vote. Thanks for participating! September Drive: The September drive was fruitful. We set out to remove July through October 2015 from our backlog (an ambitious 269 articles), and by the end of the month, we had cut that pile of oldest articles to just 83. We reduced our overall backlog by 97 articles, even with new copyedit tags being added to articles every day. We also handled 75% of the remaining Requests from August 2016. Overall, 19 editors recorded copy edits to 233 articles (over 378,000 words). October Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 16 through 22 October; the theme was Requests, since the backlog was getting a bit long. Of the 16 editors who signed up, 10 editors completed 29 requests. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part. November Drive: The November drive was a record-breaker! We set out to remove September through December 2015 from our backlog (239 articles), and by the end of the month, we had cut that pile of old articles to just 66, eliminating the two oldest months! We reduced our overall backlog by 523 articles, to a new record low of 1,414 articles, even with new tags being added to articles every day, which means we removed copy-editing tags from over 800 articles. We also handled all of the remaining Requests from October 2016. Officially, 14 editors recorded copy edits to 200 articles (over 312,000 words), but over 600 articles, usually quick fixes and short articles, were not recorded on the drive page. Housekeeping note: we do not send a newsletter before every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your Watchlist. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdslk. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Community wishlist poll
ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE
For NPP: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
As of this post, it's been 10 years to the minute since I registered here at Wikipedia. For anyone still watching this page (there should be over 400 of you, but who's counting?), I just wanted to say a quick thanks for making this past decade of editing a rewarding one. From those who patiently offered their guidance when I was new, to the many folks who have reviewed, critiqued, and helped improve my article submissions, I've had the pleasure of working with countless talented and dedicated individuals – some of whom have since become close friends. I won't pretend that the world is much better off for my having spent 10 years fiddling with a website, but I've certainly taken a lot away from my experience here, and I like to think that I've made some small positive impact in return. While I don't contribute to nearly the same degree that I once did, it seems there are still articles to write, newbies to counsel, and killjoys to defy – see you all out in the field! – Juliancolton | Talk 22:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your name under the list of GA mentors. I just wrote up my first GA review, could you take a look at it and see if I missed anything? I'm reviewing Chlorine, review at Talk:Chlorine/GA2. Thanks, Icebob99 ( talk) 02:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.
For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):
Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address.
After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.
The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are Godot13 ( talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs), and Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email).
Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.
If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I fail to see the reason why you say the sources don't establish real-world notability, in regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What are those. Jjjjjjdddddd ( talk) 00:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Juliancolton. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MySupermarket (2nd nomination) as "delete" but wrote in the close, "No consensus for deletion has been formed, though I'd strongly advise editors (especially Sionk) to continue their work in improving the article to avoid it being renominated in the future." I think you accidentally clicked the "delete" button instead of the "no consensus" button. Would you take another look? Thank you, Cunard ( talk) 09:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I found Talk:Jordan Capri as an orphaned talk page. When checking the mainspace title Jordan Capri, I see you deleted it as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightspeed Media Corporation (2nd nomination), however I don't see Jordan Capri mentioned there at all. There was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Capri from 2005 closed as keep, but I don't see a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Capri (2nd nomination). Was this a misclick, or is there a link that I'm not seeing here? Avic ennasis @ 13:37, 27 Kislev 5777 / 13:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
You closed the subject discussion with a request to merge to List of literary adaptations of Pride and Prejudice. Please review my comment there (under Section "Pruning") and advise how to proceed. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 00:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Juliancolton. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solodev as "delete". I and several of my collegeus have tried to make this page good. But several editors said Solodev was not notable. But I would like to bring to your attention that Solodev was listed in a approved source from Wikipedia http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/List_of_content_management_frameworks as a one of a list of content management frameworks. Solodev was listed on this page /info/en/?search=List_of_content_management_frameworks but was removed when an author cited a lack of notability. Myself and my collegues have tried to make updates to the article and several well known experts in this field have tried to weigh in as well. Can you please reconsider or provide feedback how to get this page back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.112.40.58 ( talk) 22:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC) --Also Solodev should be listed here: /info/en/?search=List_of_content_management_systems Solodev has much more Current news coverage than several of the CMS systems listed on this page. Both of these pages serve as a guide to cover all publicly used CMS systems and Solodev has notably in comparison to the companies listed on this page.
Thanks for offering to be my mentor. I'm not sure exactly what it entails, does it just mean I should ask for advice if I have doubts, or is there more to it? As I've now been resysopped, I'll start by reading the articles on the Administrator's guide. Κσυπ Cyp 18:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe that an admin needs to be able to recite all policies and guidelines (I couldn't tell you the first thing about set index articles, for instance), and most of the important stuff is solidly within the realm of common sense. It's taboo to say, but true in my experience: the best way to learn or re-learn policy is on the job. If it were me, I'd pick one or two admin noticeboards or backlogs - maybe WP:RFPP and CAT:CSD, or WP:UAA and WP:AFD - and spend some time familiarizing myself with the policies and guides necessary to process some of the more straightforward requests. From there, the rest sort of falls into place.
Looking forward to working with you, and I'm glad to see things got sorted relatively painlessly. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
It's good to know that most of the important stuff is still consistent with common sense. I'll refamiliarise myself with the policies/guides, and let everything fall into place, then. Thanks for the links, I'll look at them.
I'm glad to be back, and looking forward to working with you, too. Κσυπ Cyp 23:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
|
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.
Hello Juliancolton, As you can see in the discussion there were no grounds for deletion of the wikipedia article; the discussion was in the favor of keeping the page. Additionally, the page did not violate any wikipedia standards following the proposal of deletion. The author of the deletion proposal has pushed forward over the years several times in attempts to delete the article; a student on campus who does not like the paper. The paper has a notable history and has long been in the public arena in the Southern California area as seen in the sources for the page from NBC News, the ACLU, FIRE, San Diego Tribune, and many more.
Ptariche ( talk) 04:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Greetings, GA Cup competitors! December 29th marked the end of the first round, after it was extended from its previously scheduled conclusion at the end of November. Because of the smaller pool of contestants this year, it was decided to keep sign-ups open throughout the month of December. This extension proved to be very helpful as we saw that more users signed up and completed many reviews. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 402 points, followed by Cartoon network freak with a close 338 points. Shearonink who signed up after our extension was in third with 170 points. We had a rule clarification in Round 1 which was that many articles were being passed with blatant copyright violations and plagarism occurring in the articles. Thus, the judges have concluded that if an article is passed even if it has a copyright violation/plagarism, we will not provide points for that article as it wouldn't be considered a "complete review" under the scoring rules. In the end, 94 articles were reviewed by 14 users who will all advance to Round 2. The judges had planned on having 16 contestants advance but since only 14 did, we are changing the pools in this round. We will be having 2 pools of 3 and 2 pools of 4 in Round 2, with the top 2 in each pool advancing to Round 3 as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 will begin on January 1 at 00:00:00 UTC and will end on January 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase! To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to
our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1842 Atlantic hurricane season you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TropicalAnalystwx13 -- TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk) 01:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)