This is an archive of past discussions with User:Rcsprinter123. 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.
Your behavior here is inappropriate and inexcusable. Utterly needless cruelty/hostility is precisely the reason so many editors bail from this project, and all you've done is make someone who's felling down feel worse. You own Tomtomn00 an apology. Sven ManguardWha?01:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The Tea Leaf - Issue Two
Hi! Welcome to the second edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
Teahouse celebrates one month of being open! This first month has drawn a lot of community interest to the Teahouse. Hosts & community members have been working with the project team to improve the project in many ways including creating scripts to make inviting easier, exploring mediation processes for troubling guests, and best practices regarding mentoring for new editors who visit the Teahouse.
Springtime means fresh tea leaves...
First month metrics report an average of 30 new editors visiting the Teahouse each week. Approximately 30 new editors participate in the Teahouse each week, by way of asking questions and making guest profiles. An average of six new questions and four new profiles are made each day. We'd love to hear your ideas about how we can spread the word about the Teahouse to more new editors.
Teahouse has many regulars. Like any great teahouse, our Teahouse has a 61% return rate of guests, who come back to ask additional questions and to also help answer others' questions. Return guests cite the speedy response rate of hosts and the friendly, easy to understand responses by the hosts and other participants as the main reasons for coming back for another cup o' tea!
Early metrics on retention. It's still too early to draw conclusions about the Teahouse's impact on new editor retention, but, early data shows that 38% of new editors who participate at the Teahouse are still actively editing Wikipedia 2-4 weeks later, this is compared with 7% from a control group of uninvited new editors who showed similar first day editing activity. Additional metrics can be found on the Teahouse metrics page.
Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is a really nice way to make new editors feel welcome.
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. -- Sarah (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
As you may have noticed Sarah forgot an open <small in the tea leaf 2. You mentioned you use AWB here, could you fix this for us in other people talk pages with AWB, if need be I could help with the technical instructions to do it easily. Chico Venancio (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Would you like to conduct an interview for the Signpost?
I appreciate the energy you showed over at the WikiProject Report today. Just be careful not to jump the gun on declaring it finished. It still needed the news sidebar, pictures, and a teaser. One person typically writes an entire WP Report on their own, although other editors will copyedit and make small tweaks. If you're interested in writing an article for the WikiProject Report, contact me with the project you'd like to interview and date you'd like to run it so we can clear out some space in the schedule. Here are some resources you may find useful. -Mabeenot (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
That's OK, but you didn't have to totally re-write the lead I'd so kindly done for you. It's not your report exclusively. And I don't really have a project I'd like to have featured either, though thanks for asking. Rcsprinter(speak)19:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, now I think about it, the Teahouse might like an interview. I know it's not technically a wikiproject, but it could do with a little publicity. I will gladly do an interview and some other people who might like to are SarahStierch, founder and Jtmorgan, host. Maybe Writ Keeper as well. Rcsprinter(orate)14:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I got your talkpage message. And I appreciate your interest, of course. Actually I am not the founder of the Teahouse, and Jonathan and I are both hosts. We are community fellows who brainstormed and designed the project as part of our fellowship. You can read more about the concept on meta, which would probably be the *best* place to get informed about the project. Ocaasi hasn't been very active in the project, so perhaps interviewing a host that has participated more (I think Writ Keeper would be great) would be more valuable. Just some thoughts. Sarah (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I guess "founding" is just a really weird word to use, as it's Wikipedia and the whole world owns it :) But, I did help create it, along with a whole team of people. Regardless, I'm fine with it, and it'd be best if Jonathan was involved, since we both have our own roles within the project. Sarah (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Pick any date you like and I'll clear out that date in the schedule for your interview. You can use this sandbox for your interview. This is your byline, so feel free to take the interview in whatever direction you like. Let me know if you need anything. -Mabeenot (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Glance through some of the previous reports for question ideas. I like to mix it up with a couple project-specific questions to make each interview fresh, but there are definitely some standard questions I've recycled over the years regarding how they first got involved, FAs/GAs, photography, task forces, portals, getting involved, etc. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks so much for trying to clean up my mess. Unfortunately, I was doing the same, so we have several sup sup closing tags. That's no big deal, I just wanted to avoid duplicating efforts going forward. What's the plan? Ocaasit | c16:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
…unfortunately did not show evidence of a consensus of participants to approve your membership in that group; I'm sorry. Hopefully, you will be able to view the feedback in the spirit it was intended—constructive criticism—and you will be able to focus on the issues which are of concern to the project members, so that if you choose to reapply in the future, your chances of success would be much greater. Thank you for volunteering your efforts! -- Avi (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their May 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate January, February, and March 2011 from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, and Stfg.
I don't know what your purpose is in reverting twice, but please stop it now. The regular editors are working hard to a deadline to get the edition out, and we do not appreciate meddling with our updates to the newsroom status page. Bring it up on the talk page if there's something eating you. Tony(talk)16:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know that there was no editor in chief right now. I was going off past experiences where I had marked it done and been reverted. Rcsprinter(deliver)18:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
moin Rcsprinter123, regarding your reverts in the newsroom: please don't. as you may don't know, the signpost is run without an editor-in-chief right now and so its handled differently. Tony1 is justified to do what he does & notes in the newsroom, thanks & regards Jan eissfeldt (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know that there was no editor in chief right now. I was going off past experiences where I had marked it done and been reverted. Rcsprinter(deliver)18:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Selene Scott here. I saw your message on the adoption page and I like the idea of a series of lessons. Please let me know. I'm in California but keep odd hours usually between 1:00pm to 4:00am PST. Thanks
"Selene Scott (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)"
Yes, of course I'd be delighted to adopt you. I'll set up the proper adoption pages in a few days when I have more time, but in the meanwhile you just hold on and get ready for a good lesson on how the wiki works! You're also on in the middle of the night to me (I'm in the UK) but I'm sure we can work something out. Rcsprinter(converse)19:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I don't know how I managed it but obviously I contacted two users for adoption. I am happy to be mentored by both of you! And thankfully Viriditas believes I can. "Selene Scott (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)"
ITN
Rc, if Jimmy replies to my email, I'd like to beef up the In brief about the UK govt story, putting it as a main story in ITN. Apparently NAN won't be much to talk about this week. Tony(talk)12:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Sure, that's fine, but are you sure you want to so close to publication? What did you say in your email to Jimmy? (I assume you mean Wales). Rcsprinter(chatter)17:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
The Mistake was Adam's for not substituting the template onto Wilby's page - I don't see why you need to template a regular, let alone for something that clearly wasn't their fault and that they probably wouldn't have realised or be expected to realise had happened. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Adam, did you notice that you failed to Subst: the template - which means that hitting the edit link for the section, edits the content of the template not the page it's embedded in. Unfortunately for most users they won't realise that the section they are editing is not on their page, try to take care not to do that in the future. It doesn't however excuse RCSprinter templating a regular with a template that is clearly designed for new users who have edited another users space intentionally (though possibly mistakenly). Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't subst: intentionally, as I wanted the template to be easily removed, however I didn't realise someone would be editing the template. Don't mix the warning to WIlbysuffolk with not substing, they are two distinct things that happened separately. Me not substring may be my fault, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Rcsprinter giving WIlbysuffolk a template for removing content. Does it matter if it's for new users or not? He removed content, he got warned. By the way, do you just like being rudely nosey or did anyone actually invite you to make comments, to a situation you don't seem to really get? Adam Mugliston Talk 07:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Adam, it'd be a good idea if you spent a little less time being hostile. Stuart is completely correct here, by not using subst, when the editor edits the section, he will edit the template. If you don't want this to happen, either use subst, or remove the title from the template. Rcsprinter, there was no need to template Wilby for a reasonable mistake. The template you used welcomed him to wikipedia, despite the fact that he's been around for a long time and you've worked with him! A quick talk page note would have done the job just as well. Now, can we all move on? WormTT· (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see what happened - Wilbysuffolk was trying to remove it from his talkpage, unwittingly also removing it from Adam's userspace. I thought Wilbysuffolk was just blanking it randomly, so reverted it and warned him. Mistake on my part there. Sorry for my two-day absence from the airwaves, my stupid internet connection was not working. You should see it on IRC! Rcsprinter(talk to me)10:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi RC! The new issue of the Tea Leaf is available. You have offered in the past to lend a hand delivering them. Would you mind helping out? I would really appreciate it. You can find here. The delivery list is here. Thanks :D Sarah (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
You just caught me before I logged off! That's great, but can you wait until tomorrow (Tues)? It happens to be the middle of the night here. :-) Rcsprinter(gossip)20:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Participation: Out of 49 people signed up for this drive so far, 26 have copy-edited at least one article. It's a smaller group than last drive, but we're making good progress. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us!
Progress report: We're on track to meet our targets for the drive, largely due to the efforts of Lfstevens and the others on the leaderboard. Thanks to all. We have reduced our target group of articles—January, February, and March 2011—by over half, and it looks like we will achieve that goal. Good progress is being made on the overall backlog as well, with over 500 articles copy-edited during the drive so far. The total backlog currently sits at around 3200 articles.
Hall of Fame: GOCE coordinator Diannaa was awarded a spot in the GOCE Hall of Fame this month! She has copy-edited over 1567 articles during these drives, and surpassed the 1,000,000-word mark on May 5. On to the second million! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa and Stfg
That's fine, I'll submit a request for rename if you care as much as it sounds like you care (it doesn't bother me particularly). Of course, the name of the bot was (as Ed says) correct at the time; and in case that policy hadn't been implemented when I created my bot. The problem now being that it has racked up 29,146 edits, which can cause a significant drain on resources. Anyhow, I can but ask. – Jarry1250[Deliberationneeded]22:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Thank You for just pointing the way and helping out the Wiki land novices. It's so easy when you know how, and even the right Lingo to use. So frustrating when you don't. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Rcsprinter123. I am not able to view part of your signature with my settings. I have been asked to inform you to change your signature. Please see here. Axl¤[Talk]09:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, its Selene. I have just completed assignment 4 with my other mentor. I'm enjoying it. I'd like to do my front page whenever you are ready, or really any tasks you may have for me. Thanks. "Selene Scott (talk)" —Preceding undated comment added an unspecified datestamp.
That's great, Selene! I hadn't forgotten about you, but I have been extremely busy lately and haven't had much time for adopting. As it happens I was just about to log off so can you wait till the morning please before I can make a start? Thanks, Rcsprinter(chatter)21:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
That's fine, I don't mind. I think I nicked it from somewhere too, so whoever designed it is to thank. The great thing here is everyone can copy everyone else's stuff and change it to meet their own needs. Rcsprinter(orate)15:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Whaaat? I'm only marking bots that haven't edited for a few years inactive! Your bot was one little exception where it did deleting instead, so you blocked me? I can hardly believe it. Not that I want to appear to be getting up on my high horse and having a right old rant, I don't think that's very fair. Why is it not a thing I can do? It can easily be reverted by the bot owner if needed and and is pretty much a consensus backed change. The standards of admins these days... Rcsprinter(babble)20:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I would be happy to unblock ... however, your first order of business will be to undo every single one of your edits to the Bot pages directly, and will converse with the bot owner before unilaterally making such disruptive changes. (talk→BWilkins←track) 20:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Not that I agree with the tone of some of Rcsprinter's remarks, but his statement that "It can easily be reverted by the bot owner if needed and and is pretty much a consensus backed change" is certainly true: I've made the same edits in the past, and indeed have had a couple of expired (due to RL busyness) BRFAs on the subject. Indeed, I've made about 400 such edits in my time, so I guess if anyone should be blocked, it's me really. Bot owners can change it back if they wish to, but in my time, only 1 (out of 400) ever has. – Jarry1250[Deliberationneeded]20:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Show me the appropriate consensus for this specific set of actions. I agree that bot owners sometimes disappear, but in that case, the automated task should a) check the contribs of the bot AND then b) check the contribs of the bot owner before making a unilateral decision. Remember, the editor is 100% responsible for the automated edit, and is therefore responsible for errors – tagging bot pages this way is not appropriate by any manner (talk→BWilkins←track) 20:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's arguing that Rcsprinter shouldn't have to correct any errors he made (though he can't now for 2.5 days...), just whether blocking him is the standard response to "AWB user made error on one page". I don't think we've ever had an RFC on the topic (my BRFA, and Richard's before me, attracted little outside attention), but as I say, I have made something like 400 edits of this nature without criticism (and one reversion) from bot operators. – Jarry1250[Deliberationneeded]20:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Gotta say, surprising block there Bwilkins. No warning? I'm sure you're annoyed Rcsprinter marked your bot inactive, and perhaps he shouldn't have been doing it, but a quick word would have done a lot more for community relations than a block WormTT(talk) 20:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
My first post to him was an attempt to discuss. As I went through his contributions, I found AWB-Gone-Wild to bot pages, and therefore needed to stop the automated tool. Odds are it would not have stopped without the block (talk→BWilkins←track) 20:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Shouting "WTF" at an editor is not an "attempt to discuss". I've found Rcsprinter receptive in the past to feedback, and very quick to respond too. I believe he's now offline, so no more AWB would be occuring. Even if you were certain it would not stop, a block of 60 hours is excessive. 10 minutes would throw up enough errors in AWB gone wild. I've got to say, I really think you've handled this badly. WormTT(talk) 20:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
If he's actually gone offline without any desire to fix the improper edits (all it took was an agreement to do so, and double-check in the future to be happily unblocked), then it simply makes the block more necessary – who knows when he's going to be back? Unfortunately, based on the semi-automated nature, the wide swath of damage, and now his unwillingness to fix it, sadly my block becomes more unfortunately necessary (talk→BWilkins←track) 20:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
No, I disagree with that too. If he's gone offline, it may be for a plethora of reasons, I certainly don't see "unwillingness" by default. This is a volunteer effort, remember. He's just been blocked in an excessive act, there is no policy stating he has to "clean up a mess" to be unblocked. What I am seeing is an admin who's had his bot marked as unactive assuming bad faith of a user who was trying to help out. I am quite shocked that you are so unwilling to listen to feedback on this matter, you've always been one of the admins I rather respected. Given the amount of comment below, I would unblock myself, but Rcsprinter is one of my ex-adoptees, and I try not to use the admin bits with regard to them. WormTT(talk) 20:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Let me repeat: the change to my bot merely brought him to my attention. After checking, the dozens of Bot-pages being modified (plus his block log) is what led to the time I chose. As I already stated, I will personally and happily unblock him immediately with the indication (and follow through) that he will reverse the Bot-pages changes he has made, and will indeed get approval for the changes in the future. This isn't rocket science, and I'm giving a heck of a lot of WP:AGF I believe (talk→BWilkins←track) 20:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
You blocked within 3 minutes of your first post "WTF" about your own bot. You have not given Rcsprinter a clear warning that he would be blocked, nor a reasonable time to stop. You have half a dozen editors already here telling you it's a bad block. Imposing a specific requirement on unblocking, when the block was bad is again problematic. If that's you're final word though, if you are unwilling to unblock, right now, I will be taking this to ANI. WormTT(talk) 20:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Without wishing to pile on, I was surprised by the block too. I think a request to stop, with a reasonable amount of time to respond, would have been more proportionate. AWB is only a semi-automated tool after all.Pol430talk to me20:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
That block is too harsh. Leaving a very short and rather undefiled, harsh note to which Rcsprinter replied quite positively anyway is hardly a discussion. Adam Mugliston Talk 20:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd say "time served" (yes, minutes) with a suggestion that he gets consensus for the edit before carrying on. WormTT(talk) 20:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd agree, the block has served it's stated purpose; its continuance serves only to be punitive – contrary to the spirit of the blocking policy. Pol430talk to me20:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Please excuse the intrusion, Rcs. I don't condone your edits, probably bourne of frustration, I'm guessing. But I must have missed the steps where you were repeatedly warned, encouraged to undo your edits and converse with the bot owners, and given the opportunity to apologise. Justice seen to be done. Or done to be seen? And you have now been given a task you can't even begin. That must be a little frustrating. It's time for you to write your 100 lines on the wiki blackboard, but luckily all the chalks have been safely locked away, um... Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Please, mocking BWilkins does not help the situation. There have been mistakes all around; best we all just learn from them and move on. -— Isarra༆21:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks to be mocking the actions, not mocking the editor. But yes, I think it would make sense for all to move on productively. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I have unblocked Rcsprinter123, since there is evidently no consensus for the block being so long. It has fulfilled its role of making him aware of the problem, and now it should be clear that he won't continue without changes to the task. We can move ahead from here by reviewing the edits and ensuring that no "active" bots were tagged. Additionally, a discussion on how to determine when bots are considered "inactive" may be useful. — The Earwig(talk)21:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I was only watching this discussion but i have to say i'm glad he's been unblocked and hope he's not been discouraged from editing Jenova2021:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
As Worms classless notification above simply negates the long, friendly one I was composing, feel free to just consider the above notification of the above ANI. (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Just to introduce an irrelevancy, "classless" doesn't mean what you're using it to mean, at least in my dictionary. (The edit summary was still sat there in my watchlist bothering me, making tired parts of my brain think that either this is a discussion of object-oriented programming or that someone just quoted from Working Class Hero – warning, naughty lyrics). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Message from the editor
Wow, do so many people watch my talkpage?! Three main things to say: firstly, I think BWilkins was very wrong to block me like that. They did not make a reasonable attempt to discuss. They shouted WTF at me, so I replied right away positively answering the yelled query and giving my apologies. This was of course ignored. BWilkins never asked me to stop editing, so I did not. They then blocked me less than 3 minutes later for two and a half days with no warning whatsoever. Then they started an ANI discussion. They also kept talking about people AGF and ABF. Did it occur to them to AGF of me and discuss it reasonably? It doesn't appear so.
Secondly, every single page I edited was on WP:Bots/Status/inactive bots. Which I went through yesterday and the day before making sure they were all still inactive, removing active ones, and updating some facts. That's the thing most people seem to have overlooked: all of those were officially "inactive" and I was simply marking them as such. Do you think I would just go through willy-nilly and change them all randomly, or carry out a consensus-backed change that, as Jarry1250 says, is carried out fairly regularly by a variety of different people? Of course I would not. And that is why I did it, believing nobody would think any different of me afterwards, a routine task. But no, I mistakenly (just one weeny mistake) marked 7seriesbot inactive. It did not occur to me at the time that perhaps it was one of those bots where it just does deleting – the actual contribs were more than a year out. Instead of reverting me calmly and having a nice little discussion and explaining it to me, Bwilkins creates all this hype. Ridiculous admin behaviour.
And finally, thirdly, lastly, der endlich et finalement, the block coincided with when I was going to go offline anyway. That's why I had to hurry away without consenting to agree to any terms or anything. Please understand this.
Thanks also to those who took my side (Worm, Demiurge1000, Pol430, Adam, Gilderien, Isarra etc) and to Earwig for my timely unblock. BWilkins, I'm making a very polite request you never edit this page again. Rcsprinter(natter)15:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Please excuse my earlier comment of "I don't condone your edits" which suggests that they might have been easily construed as vandalism or intended to disrupt. But from what you say here, they were made in perfectly good faith and intended to be wholly constructive. You admit you made one mistake. It seems that, on this occasion, that was one mistake too many. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't know enough about bots and bot policy to say whether the initial edits were problematic or not. I accept that they were in good faith, but I am not certain they were right. I suggest that you start a discussion, perhaps at the Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard before you make any further similar edits – they're clearly contentious. If it is consensus backed, as you say, you should be able to show where the consensus was gathered. Consensus by silence is fine until someone complains, and it's clear that that has happened.
As for your suggestion that Bwilkins does not edit this page again, I find that to be distinctly shortsighted. Bwilkins has always been one of the best admins on this encyclopedia, and despite the fact that I disagree with him over this block, I retain that opinion. What's more, it's pretty much ineffective, because the WP:NOBAN policy is so wishy-washy. If Bwilkins comes here for an administrative purpose, then your request is going to mean diddly squat. I think it'd be better to let bygones be bygones and move on.
Finally, you've conveniently ignored this. Cleaning up messes you make is a good idea, and not doing it is a bad one. The encyclopedia has enough problems without editors creating more. If consensus goes against you at your discussion, I'd expect you to clean up this too. WormTT(talk) 09:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I have not conveniently ignored it, I just haven't done it yet. But I'll do it now. And hopefully Bwilkins won't need to edit here again because I won't do anything needing administrative force. Rcsprinter(talk)15:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Host feedback needed at the Teahouse!
Hi! We're seeking your feedback as a current or formal host at the Teahouse about the project. Please stop by and lend your voice at your convenience, here. Thanks :) Sarah (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 May newsletter
We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is Cwmhiraeth (submissions), whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader, Grapple X (submissions), is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. Miyagawa (submissions) leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by Casliber (submissions), our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.
This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user, Muboshgu (submissions), claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for !voting
at my successful RFA
Thank you, Rcsprinter123/Archives, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. Good luck with the WikiCup! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see it was using Kissle. I've not tried to use that before, but it probably needs tweaking so it doesn't mark pages as patrolled. Not sure how to go about that exactly, though. — Mr. Stradivarius(have a chat)13:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Well actually the whole kind of point of Kissle is to patrol pages, the tagging is just an add-on. Thanks for reporting this to me, I won't patrol when I've tagged. Best, Rcsprinter(talkin' to me?)14:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Participation: Out of 54 people who signed up this drive, 32 copy-edited at least one article. Last drive's superstar, Lfstevens, again stood out, topping the leader board in all three categories and copy-editing over 700 articles. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
Progress report: We were once again successful in our primary goal—removing the oldest three months from the backlog—while removing 1166 articles from the queue, the second-most in our history. The total backlog currently sits at around 2600 articles, down from 8323 when we started out just over two years ago.
Coodinator election: The six-month term for our third tranche of Guild coordinators will be expiring at the end of June. We will be accepting nominations for the fourth tranche of coordinators, who will also serve a six-month term. Nominations will open starting on June 5. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, and Stfg
Hi. I'm just letting you know that I have reverted your edit to Wikipedia:RfA Clerks noticeboard (draft). Please note that that this is a draft project only (it is clearly stated at the top of the page) for the use of the developers of RfA reform programmes. RfA matters require considerable experience. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Enough to demonstrate a good knowledge of adminship and it election process. 'Years' is a bad criteria, as you are well aware. Plenty of edits and community participation of the right kind in the relevant areas are what matter. My own, possibly subjective opinion, is that anyone who would want to be an RfA clerk, would either be an admin already, or have at least the kind of experience that would make them one if they ran for office. That said, due to the inherent problems with the system, we have so few people wanting to be admins nowadays that the entire question of RfA reform is moot. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
