This is an archive of past discussions with User:Redmarkviolinist. 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.
Well, you've made a convincing case, and I doubt that the guy isn't a sock. However, I'd rather abstain from passing any further judgment (I've noted that the excat IP is the same and those two are the only ones on it) because I did accuse Dreamy of pointstacking on WP:MHCON because he was writing 2k long articles and rating them all as B - he wrote about 15-20 2k long articles in one month, rated them all B and collected about 95 points. So I'd rather not drop a hammer on him lest it look like a vengeance block. But I don't think the block would make any difference on Dreamafter except to stop him from contributing and he hasn't socked since then. But I'm sure it will be brought up by someone whenever Dreamafter makes his next RfA or MILHIST coord run. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Re:Coaching
Sorry for taking so long to respond. You've made a few blunders lately that RfA "regulars" will pounce on; you need to think more carefully about your decisions. Find five AfDs that interest you and make a convincing argument in each. Then report back here with links to the AfDs; I'll see how it turns out. 21:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
A-Class review: Battle of Appomattox Station
As requested, I've fixed the broken ref, and also converted the long form cites into short form ones.
This review is due to be closed today but under the new rules you can ask for an extension of up to three days to fix ongoing issues. Would this help? If so, please request it on the review page.
Hi, can you help me? I have recently made a page entitled 40K Radio, and 3 minutes after I made it it was deleted. I put a hangon template, and made a argument to keep it, however an admin, immediatly deleted it. Thanks for your helpCaptain0loken (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I have made some remarks concerning your original review, as have others here and elsewhere. You are welcome to comment, if time permits. Thanks! Gosgood (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You signed up to complete this list at the WP:AWC. The list has been moved to article space because it is fleshed out enough to be useful to readers. But it is still not completed yet. I've given you a chunk of clay to start with. It is up to you to sculpt it into a work of art. ;) The Transhumanist18:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
WBOSITG's RfA
Hello Redmarkviolinist, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for your participation in my RfA which was passed with a final tally of 114/10/4. I'm both shocked and honoured to gain so much support from users whom I admire and trust, and I hope I can avoid breaking that backing by being the best administrator I possibly can. I will take on board the opposition's comments and I hope to improve over the coming months and years. Once again, thank you! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Redmarkviolinist. You have new messages at Tiptoety's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Milhist T&A 08: a reminder
This is just a reminder that you promised to revisit the ranges you did for Tag & Assess 2008 and fix the outstanding problems, mostly not adding task forces. It is crucial that these are added, where appropriate, to each article as this is the main objective of the drive. The worklists you signed up for are:
A quick look at the ranges suggests that barely 10% of the articles have been tagged. This includes the articles that Woody and I worked on for you as part of quality control. Here are some random examples from ranges you signed off as completed:
Large number of articles about people called Eric ... Erich ... Ernest ... and Ernst .... mostly not tagged for biography=y
Also, I cannot reconcile the nine ranges above, which makes 1800 articles maximum, with the 2000 articles you've claimed in your tally. For fairness to other participants, in this case, any eventual awards will be based on the project coordinators' assessment of work done rather than the amount claimed. An accurate tally avoids disappointment later.
Once your exam pressures are out of the way, I hope that you will work through the ranges, fixing them up. As I mentioned before, no one doubts your enthusiasm but you need to take this more carefully and more slowly. Our best, most experienced, assessors take about 90-100 minutes to work methodically through a 200-article range: you have been doing them in about ten minutes each so it's not surprising that so much is missed.
I am disappointed. When I recused myself from dealing with Hashmi, Usman (talk·contribs) I thought that you guys would handle it correctly. But, because you marked it:
Resolved
> Admins who patrol the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard ignored it until the auto-bot archived it for lack of edits in a time period. But this information was ignored because the case was marked resolved.
I don't think you and I are a good fit. Plus, you haven't replied to my message in over a week. Thanks for the offer, however. :) ImpIn | (t - c) 01:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I see below that you got grounded. In that case, I'll give you a break, although I don't know if I really need an adoptee. ImpIn | (t - c) 01:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I recently made a dozens of edits on An Lushan page, to improve the readability of this article. But it seems that my edits had an influence on the ongoing GA review. I explain : I'm French (-> unperfect English -> unperfect section's title), not familiar with English-Wikipedia usages (-> used bold for subtitles).
I can change the bold into === Subtitle ===, but I can do myself the copyedit need after my edits.
For Chinese characters, you have to instant the "Extrem oriental character management" on your Windows (I guest... all Linux I know manage UTF8 natively) 220.135.4.212 (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I made several changes (intro expanded, links in ref improved, bold change into editable === Sub-section === ). Please correct your comment on the talk page accordingly.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
How to change the color of clicked links?
Hi, I don't like the purple color that clicked links show up in. Hard for me to see. Any advice on changing it? ImpIn | (t - c) 22:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 157 unreviewed articles. Out of 215 total nominations, 44 are on hold, 13 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11)
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
Giggy (talk·contribs) (a.k.a. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk·contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
New GA Review Process - Review Subpages
In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable.
When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category.
When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{GA nominee}} template on its talk page, and click on the link to start the review. When the reviewer clicks on that link, they will also see some instructions on how to start a review of a GAN. For new reviewers, there's also a link to the Good Article criteria, as well as to the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles page and the mentors list. Once an article is reviewed, the GA review page should be transcluded onto the main article talk page, by adding {{Talk:Article/GA#}} to the bottom of the talk page. This is to ensure maintain the transparency of the GA process, as well as to make editors of the article in question aware that the review is taking place. When an article is either passed or failed, there's really nothing different to do in the process, although reviewers are encouraged to utilize the {{ArticleHistory}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I realize you are busy in RL, but the article Arromanches (R 95) has been on GA Review Hold for nearly a month. Would it be possible for you to either pass or fail the article so as to get it off of the GAN list? Skinny87 (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
what do you think I need to learn to avoid getting blocked ever again?
It is always smart to follow NPOV. If this was a perfect Wiki and everyone wrote in a NPOV, there would be no controversy. However this is not the case, a I am also guilty from time to time while writing articles, and it is one aspect of editing that everyone can continue to learn about. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢDrop me a lineReview Me!
Well, this is in fact what the dispute is about: I say the current 9/11 happens to be POV/biased, since it leaves out a lot of information which would put the story in a different light. /Xiutwel
do you think WP:NPOV counts when 9/11 is concerned?
My view on NPOV-All around the world, people are reading these articles that we are writing. So, instead of getting the straight information from the article and formulating their own ideas on the topic, they are reading other peoples point of view on the topic. Needless to say, this will create quite a share of controversy, and we will have more IP addresses commenting on the discussion page about how they disagree with the idea than we do currently. 9/11 applies perfectly to my view on NPOV-this is probably one of the most read articles internationally, so people from anywhere around the world should get the actual neutral facts on the article rather than getting an American biased view point. You may or may not agree with me on this, but this is my view on NPOV and 9/11. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢDrop me a lineReview Me!
Do you think citing the 9/11 Commission report would be in order? I would have liked to mention in the article, that the 9/11 Commission does not mention the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11/2001. I also would have liked to quote it ad verbatim:
To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance.Al Qaeda had many avenues of funding. If a particular funding source had dried up, al Qaeda could have easily tapped a different source or diverted funds from another project to fund an operation that cost $400,000–$500,000 over nearly two years. /X
should I (already) request for my ban to be lifted?
No, I would not recommend this. Our fellow editors need to be skeptical on this to make sure incidents like this do not reoccur. I would recommend creating a page at User:Xiutwel/September11/NPOVSandbox and search for sections of the 9/11 article that you consider to be biased, copy them, and edit them so they are without bias. Paste the before and after versions of these. Also, if you think more information should be added, then write a draft of it and have another editor review it (I would be willing) to make sure it is without bias. After this, your page will be invaluable when you request your ban to be lifted. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢDrop me a lineReview Me!
Well, my main objection is the absense of criticism of the official version. It's just parrotting the government. I was barred from mentioning criticism by former ministers of Britain and Germany, France and Japan. It's not so much sections that are biased, it's the whole article with some sections less biased than others. Any ideas? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute)22:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. Could you please post links to the AfDs here? I need to read the arguments - the purpose of this (and indeed admin coaching in general) isn't to boost your Wikipedia-space contribution or try to get you through an RfA - it's to make sure you're a good admin once/if you pass your RfA. I need to see that your arguments suggest a firm grasp of policy since that's pretty much essential to any administrative action that a sysop can take. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood18:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't nominate you in good faith right now, because frankly, if you were a candidate I had never encountered before, I would oppose your RfA right now. Consider your coaching complete - I really don't want to be involved in admin coaching anymore - but you should probably wait a bit before asking me to nominate you because I really don't think you have quite the understanding of policy and the encyclopedia that an admin should. Just work some more on articles and I'll see. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood19:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Military history wiki
Thank you for the invitation. Unfortunately, I have way too many other commitments at the moment, but here and in real life, to participate. --ROGER DAVIEStalk19:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Redmarkviolinist, I saw the template you created in a user talk page. I just wanted to tell you that it is really good and I'm going to use it next time. Nahraana (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
My adoption
Hello,
I think it is time that i graduate. I don't think you can offer me any more help. I would like to be able to adopt wikipedians my self and cannot do this while i am adopted myself. If you could drop me a line. Thanks for all your help and good luck in the future,
Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk | Sign14:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)
The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much indeed for your help with and commitment to the drive. May I please trouble you to comment at the post-drive workshop? Your feedback will help us to improve the next drive. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIEStalk09:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)
The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 4,675 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 141 unreviewed articles. Out of 186 total nominations, 28 are on hold, 14 are under review, and 3 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film, and drama (28 articles), Sports and recreation (27 articles), Music (22 articles), Transport (18 articles), and War and military (13 articles).
There are currently 4 articles up for re-review at Good Article Reassessment. Congratulations! There really is no "backlog" here! :-)
GA Sweeps is Recruiting Reviewers
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
ThinkBlue (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for July, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. ThinkBlue had a whopping 49 reviews during the month of July! ThinkBlue was also one of our two reviewers of the month from June, and has been editing Wikipedia since December 1, 2006, and is interested in articles dealing with Friends, Will and Grace, CSI:Miami, Monday Night Raw, Coldplay.
Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of July include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GA Sweeps Process
The GA Sweeps process has recently reached its first year anniversary. If you are unaware of what GA Sweeps is, it is a process put in place to help ensure the integrity of the ever-growing number of GAs, by determining if the articles still meet the GA criteria. Experienced reviewers check each article, improving articles as they review them, and delisting those that no longer meet the criteria. Reviewers work on a specific category of GAs, and there are still many categories that need to be swept. In order to properly keep track of reviews, a set date was used to determine what articles needed to be reviewed (since any future GAs would be passed according to the most recent GA criteria).
The number of GAs that were to be reviewed totals 2,808. Since the beginning of Sweeps, the progress has reviewed 981 by the end of July 2008 (or exempted them). For a table and chart breakdown of the current progress, see here.
With more than twenty editors reviewing the articles, progress is currently a third of the way done. At this rate, it will take another two years to complete the Sweeps, and active involvement is imperative to completing on time. We are always looking for new reviewers, and if you are interested in helping in speeding up the Sweeps process and improving your reviewing skills, please contact OhanaUnited.
Did You Know...
... that the goal of GA Sweeps is to reviewed all articles listed before 26 August2007?
... that the entire category of, "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" has been swept?
... that of all subcategories, "Recordings, compositions and performances" in the Music category has the most articles (240 articles in total)?
