The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.
To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page. ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.
Welcome back
Just to say "welcome back" :) I wouldn't say oh-so-much has changed (despite the regular fiascos), whatever other people try to tell you. The Signpost year roundup for 2010, and "Technology 2011 roundup", might be a good place to start. - Jarry1250[Deliberationneeded]11:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9 Beaches
Hello Thaddeus,
My name is Robin Gilbert and I'm the manager of 9 Beaches Hotel in Bermuda.
I see that you have recently (it appears) posted something about us on Wikipedia.
Whilst we have had our issues with the farm next door many many people have though positively of us these past years (see Trip Advisor).
Certainly the story in the NY Times 6 years ago was a disappointment...but between then and the time we closed for an $80 million dollar re-development in December 2009, our ratings on Trip Advisor (TA), as a quide, were going up and up. At the time we closed back in 09 we were in fact the #1 hotel in Bermuda on the TA site.
I wonder if it's possible for you to have a look at other sources of information about 9 Beaches and perhaps consider revising your posting?
Many thanks.
Regards
p.s. We are still closed and expect to re-open towards the end of 2013.R.
Cabanaman2007 (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I undeleted the article noting the subject's notability. I plan to use all available reliable sources in my rewrite, so feel free to point me to anything you are aware of. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! Have a look at "CFS Bermuda" (Canadian Forces) on Wikipedia as this was the use of the land on which we sit prior to the closing of the base. As I find specific items I'll let you know, although I'm new to Wikipedia and trying to figure it out.
Cabanaman2007 (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article is back in mainspace now. Take a look and let me know if you have nay suggestions for improvement. Bernstein's review is still in there, but is now balanced by many other people's opinions and a wealth of historical/general information. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I would like to salute you for not attempting to create the article yourself given your conflict of interest. Many people in your situation would have attempted to write the article themselves, creating a messy situation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially began at the start of 2012 (UTC), and so you are free to claim any content from after that time. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points. This round will last until late February, when the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round. There, their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MSU Interview
Dear ThaddeusB,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Hi. When you recently edited Amine El Khalifi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moroccan (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.
You are certainly welcome to paraphrase some of the quote, if you like, but I believe they are nearly all direct quotes from relevant persons and thus perfect appropriate to leave as quotes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be careful when dealing with Russian scientists. These guys use older sources for identifying species. It also takes them a long time to get published, and if they have a really important result, it often gets published twice or three times, first in Russian, and the third time in a better journal and/or by a better translator. For example, the species Silene stenophylla may not be a good species; I am still trying to track this down. The "gopher" you refer to is a ground squirrel in the genus Urocitellus. Note that the source says that this is a subgenus, because they haven't kept up. Speciate (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the 2007 source: "We studied the morphology of ancient seeds of Silene species (Caryophyllaceae) excavated from ancient gopher holes (Geomys ssp.) buried under a Pleistocene-age permafrost at a site near Kolyma, Russia." Geomys is indeed a genus of gophers. The team that reported these seeds does not seems to be the same one as reported the regeneration (none of the names are the same). There is no reason that I see to believe that papers are actually referring to the same thing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Thad, I made a fun page for some friends a few years ago...can you help me undelete it and userfy it. Would be appreciated. Only thing I've ever posted.
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Thank you for your comments. You are generally correct. I look at Wikipedia a lot but believe it is full of disruptive amateurs that I usually don't edit. Ideally, there should be a mechanism to stop disruptive editors, like DD2K. In real life, they would be suspended. In WP, editors who edit a lot everyday get somewhat of a free pass. Midemer (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you delete my article? Article 'Masterdog65'
You ruined all my work! This was for my Dad when I was done, thanks a lot!! we called him masterdog65 by the way. thanks a lot i should delete your page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterdog65 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. You people to have articles, they must meet notability standards. As a word of advice, it is a very bad idea to write articles about friends and family. It is very difficult to be neutral when doing so and it can lead to hurt feelings when articles are deleted for lack of notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to hear about your father's health. If you wish to make him a tribute page, I suggest a free webhost. Wikipedia is not the right place for this sort of thing as anyone could edit the page and write whatever lies they wanted. This is one of the reasons why we can only host information verifiable by reliable sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On 27 February 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Scroogle, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Scroogle founder Daniel Brandt once sought to be sued by Google? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Scroogle.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Due to the nature of previous interactions between Mr Brandt and the WMF, I decided that having his name on the front page, even for as short a time as a DYK entry lasts, would be far more trouble than it was worth. Sorry. DS (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that Brandt's vocal criticism of Wikipedia is a sufficient reason not to post the Scroogle article, but it's not really a big deal either. Thanks for your reply. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You continuously removing my contribution which is very strong information. everybody's POV is different. You should respect others' view. This is not list of normal deads, its a list of people killed in a bizarre revolt.
Myself wont play putting again list just that, Beacuse of person like you, people loosing interest to modify wikipedia.
Hopefully one day, your big head will have some brain and respect differnt POV. You are not president of world, sooner you understand , sooner everyone lives happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parvez gsm (talk • contribs) 14:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has standards, which are set by the community, not me. I'm sorry but the community has decided that an encyclopedia article is not an appropriate place to commemorate those killed in events like this by listing their names.
I am sorry this upsets you and I never want anyone to leave Wikipedia. However, insulting me is not an appropriate response. If you are not prepared to respect the communities guidelines, and plan to fling insults when someone gently informs you of the guidelines, then perhaps your decision not to edit anymore is for the best. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was Grapple X (submissions), again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was Tigerboy1966 (submissions), thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were Ruby2010 (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), Miyagawa (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from Ruby2010 (submissions). At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.
The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.
The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for 9 Beaches
On 1 March 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 9 Beaches, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that many cabanas at 9 Beaches resort in Bermuda feature Plexiglas floors to allow guests to view the ocean below their hotel room? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/9 Beaches.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi,
You removed the DKY from theChardon High School shooting talk page but in the instructions for nominating an article on Template:Did you know nominations it says "After you have created the nomination page, list it at this page by finding the appropriate date and adding This is not the proper page to nominate your DYK article. If you have arrived here by accident, please return to T:TDYK and create your DYK nomination page by replacing the text "YOUR ARTICLE TITLE" in the form, with the title of the article you intend to nominate. under that date at the top of the section (above all the other nominations, but below the section header and hidden comment).
"The date to post your nomination under is the date when the article was created or the expansion of the article began, not necessarily today's date.
When saving your suggestion, please add the name of the suggested article to your edit summary.
You can also consider posting this same nomination to the article's talkpage, using the same code."
You didn't do anything wrong. Its just not a good idea, IMO, to post the DYK to the article's talk page in this case. The page is being visited by hundreds of new people every day. As a result, the DYK would just cause confusion and you'd get a bunch of inappropriate comments from people who are unfamiliar with the process. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just now you delete NimBid's Wiki Page, Which Was Still Under costruction. Can You please Help us Create A NimBid's Wiki As Its Quite Urgent and Will Be Very Useful For People To find a good free useful Online Trading Platform. Where They Can Buy For Free, Sell For Free & Bid For Free.
I deleted the page because it was entirely promotional in nature and also a copyright violation since most of it was copied directly from the nimbid website. If you are lookign for a place to promote your(?) business, this isn't the place for it. I have also done a quick search and I am afraid that this company does not meet notability standards at this time.
It's OK, many people make this sort of mistake with their first article. I hope you learn from this experience and contribute positively to Wikipedia in the future. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Just thought that you should know that someone forged your signature on a post on an AfD. Don't worry, the post was so clue-impaired that no one will think it's anyone who has done substantial editing at Wikipedia. Another editor has already undone the edit, and I've put the IP user who did it as a suspect in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OwenReeceBaines. Just thought you should have a heads-up in case there's any strange blowback. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
Civility reminder
Hi, ThaddeusB. It appears we're having a bit of a tiff over a recently deleted article. When an editor resorts to casting apersions about another editor's motivations in violation of WP:Civility/NPA policies, as you did in this edit summary: (Undid revision 480295123 by Xenophrenic (talk) - please stop tryign to censor the talk page, the discussion explains why the org does not have a page on Wikipedia), that is a red flag signal to me that the situation is heading in the wrong direction. It's not as if I had left an edit summary saying (please stop trying to resurrect and perpetuate previously deleted sourceless right-wing political propoganda) to provoke you. Let's handle this civilly, shall we?
Can you help me to better understand this edit of yours, where you undeleted an article, and made it a redirect to a biography of a living person? Your edit summary says, (redirect to article where it is covered rather than delete). I could see a somewhat plausible reason behind simply creating a redirect page by that name, but the act of first undeleting the unsourced text that previously existed before making it a redirect page leaves me scratching my head. Also, the BLP to which you redirected does not "cover" the topic; if coverage of the topic existed, then it would have a Wikipedia article about it. And finally, your reason for undeleting and preserving the talk page, "the discussion explains why the org does not have a page on Wikipedia", has me baffled -- you see, any editor who accesses the deleted page is greeted with a template that explains that the article once existed, was deleted, and gives the reason why it was deleted. So I find the reasoning you gave doesn't really explain your actions. Rather than charging off and raising a drama stink on an administrator noticeboard, I'm hoping that you can clarify what I seem to be missing here. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, it was a WP:PROD, and thus can be contested by anyone for any reason (including no reason), even after deletion. Thus, it is unfair to act like the article was deleted via sort of community consensus. I did not agree with deletion via PROD, contested it, and restored the page. Any user could have done this (minus actually restoring it themselves, of course) at any time (see WP:REFUND).
Now, as it happens I agreed that STORM is not independently notable, but preferred to keep the history in tact for transparency (as I stated when I restored it). The existence of the history+the talk page conversation gives a clue to any user as to why there is no article, who might otherwise recreate the page. Sorry if the word "censor" offended you, but by twice blanking the page on your own volition you were acting inappropriately. I probably failed to assume good faith, as you quite possibly were not trying to censor it, but just clean up after what you believed was a permanent deletion. Doing it once was acting BOLDly, but when a bold action is reverted that means someone (me) disagrees with the action and thus you must reach consensus to repeat the action. (I suggested in my edit summary to use RfD if you felt the existence of a redirect was inappropriate.)
As to the target of the redirect, my reasoning was that the organization is known to exist for one and only one reason. Thus I redirected it to the place where that reason is mentioned. This is the only conceivable place STORM can be mentioned and thus the best place to redirect. Note, however, that I did not undo your re-targeting, but rather only the talk page blanking. The talk page shows that several users agreed the organization shouldn't have an article and thus discourages a potential recreation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed response. I must, however, respectfully disagree with a few of your assertions.
it is unfair to act like the article was deleted via sort of community consensus
All participating parties agreed that the article should be deleted, so the consensus was a 'fact', not an 'act' -- but consensus can change, so let's review your concerns.
The existence of the history+the talk page conversation gives a clue to any user as to why there is no article, who might otherwise recreate the page.
As I noted above, any user attempting to recreate the deleted page would have immediately been informed as to why the article doesn't exist; that reason being that reliable sources about the group do not appear to exist, and it fails Wikipedia's notability requirements. What additional "clue" do you see an editor getting from the history & talk page that would necessitate their restoration? You use the word 'transparency', (and have previously used the word 'censor') which imply to me that you feel something may be concealed, yet you have not made clear what that something is. You did later state the following:
The talk page shows that several users agreed the organization shouldn't have an article and thus discourages a potential recreation.
...but that appears to me to be inappropriate reasoning. We should not seek to discourage the creation or potential recreation of any article, if the subject matter can meet Wikipedia's sourcing and notability requirements. What the editors actually agreed to was that the existing article failed to meet Wikipedia's requirement and should thus be deleted; the editors did not, as you assert, agree that the organization should never have an article or couldn't be recreated in the future if credible sources could be found, and actual notability established.
the organization is known to exist for one and only one reason. Thus I redirected it to the place where that reason is mentioned...
No, you redirected it to the Van Jones BLP article, an article which gives no indication as to the "one and only reason" the group is known to exist. That article only says that Jones was a member, and that two media sources raised that as a criticism. While I can certainly understand how you arrived at your personal conclusion, it is original research, and it is misleading to steer a reader looking for information on the group to an article about Van Jones instead.
when a bold action is reverted that means someone (me) disagrees with the action and thus you must reach consensus to repeat the action
While your explanation of WP:BOLD is accurate, your timing and application of that guideline is incorrect. You made the bold edits, implementing an inappropriate redirect to a Biography of a Living Person, and your bold edits were reverted. You must achieve consensus to repeat the action. Please do so.
Sorry if the word "censor" offended you...
Gee, thanks for the faux, Limbaugh-like apology. You do understand that saying "sorry you were offended" by your offensive action, instead of apologizing for the actual offense, only serves to exasperate the situation rather than mitigate it, right? Words don't offend me, ThaddeusB, but the intent behind them might. I can certainly say that your response has heightened my interest in an otherwise trivial situation that would have probably been shelved by now.
I disputed the PROD, which is NOT a bold action. I then redirected the page because of the consensus it wasn't properly sourced. You didn't revert my action, but instead blanked the page. That is not an appropriate action and would be considered vandalism if it was done by a new user. A local consensus at the article's talk page is not the same as a community consensus to delete the page. Furthermore, you blanked the talk page, which there was no consensus to do whatsoever. I undo that bold action. You later re-targeted the redirect, which I did not undo.
I have explained my actions as clear as I possibly can. There is no hidden motivation - I could not care less about STORM or Van Jones themselves. I performed an action that I felt was appropriate based on Wikipedia's standard of transparency. If the talk page's existence bothers you, then you'll have to seek community consensus to delete it. To me, it tells anyone who cares to look why the page is a redirect instead of an article. If the page had been AfD'ed, then the AfD discussion would serve that purpose. We don't delete AfD discussions and in this case the article's talk page is the only evidence of the local consensus to redirect. An AfD tell potential re-creators the problems the article had; here the talk page tells the problems the article had. It serves a purpose, and you have provided no actual reason to get rid of it.
And I certainly hope you were offended by the word "censor", not the action of restoring the discussion. I was careless with the use of the word and should have said "please stop blanking the talk page..." instead of "please stop try to censor the talk page..." I apologized for the use of the word, but I did not and should not apologize about undoing your blanking. If you are actually offended by the talk page documenting why it's a redirect, then I suggest you are too emotionally involved to be objective. (Not to mention that you choose to come here and accuse me of being uncivil and abusing my admin tools over something so trivial.) It is a trivial matter and I moved on days ago - why haven't you? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "revert your action, but instead deleted the page"? You undeleted a page, so I did revert that by deleting it -- as far as I could without Admin tools. If you are justifying your actions based on this "standard", is there a policy page to which you can direct me where I may read up on this standard to more fully understand it? Regarding the talk page, I asked you above what it conveys to a reader interested in (re-)creating the article, that the deleted page notification does not. You have provided no actual reason to get rid of that deleted page notification. (To use an example from your talk page, click on God Wears My Underwear and notice what it tells you about why it does not exist; note also that the Talk page has also been deleted.)
As for your violations of Wikipedia's civility policies, those would specifically fall under the admonitions against commenting about editors and misrepresenting motivations of editors. Claiming that an editor is "too emotionally involved to be objective" is equally offensive. You ask, "I moved on days ago - why haven't you?" I directly told you why in my previous post (see the very last sentence). Next you will be asking me, "Why did you post my comments about you at WP:ANI, and ask them to tell me to stop making personal comments about editors?" Instead, I'll reiterate what I said above, "Let's handle this civilly, shall we?" Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained to you multiple times that the PROD has been contested. This is not an administrator action, but rather an action any editor can do at any time, even 5 years after deletion if they wanted. If an admin speedy deleted the article at this time, they would be acting out of their authority. You, as an non-admin, are doubly acting out of your authority to "delete as far as you can" the page since you have no authority to delete any page. Contesting a PROD is not a bold action; as per the instructions, PROD is only for uncontroversial deletions. Any user who feels it is controversial can contest the PROD for any reason, and yes this includes after deletion.
Furthermore, I have explained to exactly what it does preserve - the conversation that led to the redirection. If the article had been deleted via AfD, the AfD itself would contain that conversation. That is not the case here. I have told you 4 times now that the redirecton conversion is valuable information because it documents the community consensus. We do not and have never deleted consensus building discussion just because the article was deleted.
Funny how you can insinuate that I want the redirect because I'm some conservative nut job multiple times, but if I say you are too emotionally involved (which is not a judgement on motive incidentally), you cry foul and threaten me. I'm sorry but if you think the talk page has to be redirected because you disliked the article, that is being too emotionally evolved. You have made no argument for removing the talk besides the page being deleted, which is not a valid reason as the PROD was contested. A PROD contested after deletion is exactly the same situation as an article that was never deleted for policy purposes. If you want the talk page removed so badly, you need to do so through the proper channels, not blank or redirect it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) Please explain what information is provided to an editor by restoring the Talk page that isn't already provided to that editor by the notification on the deleted page when he tries to access or re-create it. (This is my third request for this information.) There is no "conversation that led to the redirection" at that page.
2) I haven't called you a "conservative nut job", nor have I insinuated it. In fact, I specifically noted that I hadn't done so. To the contrary, I see that you do quite a bit of work in the area of article deletion, restoration, and deletion discussion -- as such, I assume you know what you are talking about here. That's why I have requested that you better explain your actions, to help me understand. I do understand that a PROD can be contested for any reason, but the reasons you have given do not stand up under scrutiny. In addition, they make no sense.
3) If you are suggesting that the proper recourse is to bring the article up at AfD, because you are contesting the PROD, then I will do so. First, please restore the article properly if you are contesting the PROD. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As to the policy about not removing talk documenting the consensus, every relevant policy on consensus, closing discussions, etc., using words like "close" (using top/bottom templates) or "archive", but never "remove" or "delete". See also WP:TPO (do not remove other users comments except under extreme circumstances). --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please direct me to the "Wikipedia's standard of transparency" you referred to above, so that I may review it. I didn't remove talk documenting a consensus. The deletion of the non-notable article was noncontroversial. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you. I prefer to take this one step at a time. You say you are contesting the PROD. I believe the next step is for me to raise the issue at AfD, after you have returned the article to its post-PROD state. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:3O is the proper next step in dispute resolution. (I am not contesting the existence of the article, so there is no article to AfD.) I have explained my reasons several times, so I am either incapable of explaining them or you are incapable of understanding them. A third party non-involved editor's opinion is the appropriate thing to seek out. If you are uninterested in going through the proper dispute resolution channels, then I have nothing else to say. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I have repeatedly asked above, and will quote for the 4th time here, "Please explain what information is provided to an editor by restoring the Talk page that isn't already provided to that editor by the notification on the deleted page when he tries to access or re-create it." You have not, as you claim, explained. You suggest that maybe you are incapable of explaining, or that I am incapable of understanding your explanation -- but you are overlooking the more apparent option: you refuse to explain. How difficult is it to explain how your option of restoring that deleted Talk page is more informative to an editor than the reasons provided to the editor by the deleted page template itself? A third party certainly isn't going to know what was inside your head, so your suggestion to go to WP:3O is nonsensical. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, I've explained my reasons as best I can - the talk page documents the deficiencies of the article for future editors who might want to try to fix the problems (or might realize it is a hopeless cause because of the comments). To me, that is valuable information. Furthermore, it shows that multiple people felt this way not just a random person who PRODed the article. You may think that this an insufficient reason for it to exist, but any reason is sufficient to stop a PROD deletion. I honestly don't know what more to say. It feels liek we are just goign in circles here, which is why I suggested a 3O.--ThaddeusB (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Subjective Judgement
I've noticed that you used "excessive", "irrelevant" without giving what "excessive" and "irrelevant", if any. I don't think that giving the name of the church is excessive description. I don't think that the sanitary condition and the horrible scene near the cordoned zone is irrelevant. I will assume good faith toward your edits. But I won't take subjective judgement and empty labels. Qrfqr (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you notice, I didn't actually remove the name of the church. What I actually did was change the extremely long run on sentence "Many people were trapped in collapsed buildings, including two churches holding mass, one being the St. Louis Catholic church and the other a smaller evangelical church." to the more concise "Many people were trapped in collapsed buildings, including the St. Louis Catholic church, which was holding mass." which preserves the same meaning without all the wordiness. As to the other sentence, again my change preserved the same meaning with less words (which included removing the blatantly obvious fact the pile of dead bodies smelled like a pile of dead bodies.)
The changes were done to improve the flow of the text, via more direct wording, not to remove any real information. If you don't like the new wording, you are of course welcome to edit it, but blind reverting does not work toward a consensus version. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the two are different. The information about the second collapsed church is gone - by your "wording", and I can hardly agree that the latter is "more concise". Again, the smell of cadaver is gone - by your "wording". It is about the sanitary condition and the scene of the most affected zone in Brazzaville. It is not "irrelevant". Qrfqr (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On 6 March 2012, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Brazzaville arms dump blasts, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
I'm very upset with your deletion of my recent addition to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartment_Ratings that it is not the unbiased resource it claims to be. I included a link to the page on their (AprtmentRatings.com) website that CLEARLY and DEFINITIVELY states that for managers of properties to respond to the free anonymous postings of apartment dwellers, be they true or lies, the managers must pay $180.00/year, plus a $100.00 onetime setup fee. When one side gets to say anything they want, using whatever language they want, and the other side is not allowed the same courtesy but must pay a large amount of money, that IS bias.
Please explain to me what about that is opinion! You seem to be exhibiting bias in this case. Are you a renter with a vendetta against apartment complexes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geopdxer (talk • contribs) 02:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is your opinion that this fee makes them biased, not a fact. You aren't allowed to insert your personal opinion into articles, but if you can find a reliable source that says this fee makes the ratings biased, then you can insert that. (And incidentally, since all apartments have to pay them same fee, there is no bias, other than the one inherent in all consumer review sites. That is, people with bad experiences are exponentially more likely to post reviews.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you consider a "reliable source"? One like-group of people are charged to enter someplace, another like-group are not. There is no bias against the group charged? You're wrong about this. And I want to challenge your decision. I believe there is a mechanism to have this submitted for discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geopdxer (talk • contribs)
In general a reliable source is a source that has earned a reputation of accuracy/fact checking (you can click on the link for more information). Things such as newspapers and books generally qualify; things such as blogs and other person webpages generally do not.
It doesn't matter if I'm wrong about bias existing or not. I can't say they are unbiased in the article without a source, just as you can't say they are biased without a source. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except that there IS a claim that they are unbiased in the existing article. Otherwise I wouldn't have felt the need to add what I did. "ApartmentRatings...claims to be an unbiased resource..." I accept your point if it is applied equally, but in this case allowing their claim that they're unbiased is contrary to the reason you gave me for excluding non-sourced opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geopdxer (talk • contribs)
Good point. I have readded the fee in a more neutral fashion. This way any reader can decide for themselves whether the claim of no bias is true or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
for moving the thing. (I got landed with a magazine cover to sort for someone...) Was I telling him the right info about G4 and userspace and the incubator and the rest? After all that (and the magazine cover), I'm beginning to doubt myself... Peridon (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, G4 only applies to things recreated after a full deletion discussion and even then only things that are not substantially changed from the deleted form. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. I too found the "you can just recreate it" attitude at WP:REFUND a little strange. Of course that is true, but there was also zero harm restoring the text and saving you the effort of doing so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I, Abhijay give ThaddeusB this barnstar for his efforts to pass my nomination about the Afghanistan Avalanche by creating an article about it that would eventually be posted in the In The News Section. Cheers and Salutations! AbhijayWhat did I do this time?02:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated, and thank you for your suggestions to ITN. If you hadn't noticed this story and brought it to ITN, chances are the article would have never been written. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently edited 2012 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transplant (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.
Virginia Tech shootings would be more consistent with policy since it is the most widely used term, but on that particular article at least there are many reliable sources that use "massacre." Here, the term massacre has been used by very few, if any, so the poor use of the word massacre wasn't my only reasoning for the move (as noted in the edit summary). --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2012 Ecuadorian protests
Would like to hear your opinion on a matter. There is an issue at 2012 Ecuadorian protests, where ive spelt out (twice) the issues on the talk page, even admitted wrong and accomadated and wanted/called for discussion only to be attacked by threats to close the page without discussion of issues and a blanket revert against BRD norms. Could you give a moment to oversight that discussion and give your view.Lihaas (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you have a look at that page. Im sick and tired of going around in circles with an editor who wants his version restored when he has done absolutely nothing to back it up but assert his opinion and that the RS is wrong, inspite of the 3O/4O which called for him to provide a source if he disagrees with RS instead of putting his claim of being right alone per WP:WRONGVERSION
I think ive tried my level best to reason with him and again and again ask him for a source and told him per BOLD and BRD he should get consensus to restore but he continues to insist his view is the only one when everyone is against it and accomodating is being tried. Ive warned him too...but id prefer for an admin to take a look at it. Also if ive not tried enough then please advice me.Lihaas (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Coool, thanks. Hes also finally initiated some proposal nw instead of reverting and i think progress is being made. Part of which ive already gone ahead with on AGF.Lihaas (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okey he seems to back to same old...accusing me of on-AGF admissions of guilt when i accomodae. needs a words...and you may e interested in his April 1st DYK comments that were roundly disagreed.
He demands his version without a shred of evidence and resorts to ad hominem attacks, even saying he has no need to source/proof.
Hey, I had an idea. It might be more productive for us to design a bot similar to our prehistoric animal bot to extract conservation data from, say, the IUCN database and add that information to the years in the environment articles. Since we'd be editing only a small number of articles our success would give us credibility making it easier for a future approval of the prehistoric bot's operations. It would also give us a chance to work out any potential kinks if something goes wrong. Whaddaya say? Abyssal (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me an example (IUCN page & info to be extracted) of what you had in mind? I assume you mean something like "so-and-so species declared extinct"? --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, if you're still interested in programming that "years in the environment" bot, is there anything you need us to do before you get to work on it? Abyssal (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As to the tag, I removed it mostly because it was redundant. If you had replaced {{blp sources}} with {{blp unsourced}} I would have just left it. That said, I will work on improving that article next as a token of appreciation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On 12 March 2012, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2011–12 Egyptian Premier League, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
Hi, Thaddeus, the United States Government Printing Office is shutting down their old website "GPO Access", host to the United States Code, the Congressional Directory and a number of other useful documents, on Friday 16 March in favor of the already-existing "FDSys" (for Federal Digital System; only computer geeks, management freaks and incorrigible bureaucrats could like this jargon). See, for example, what happens when you visit http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/ . I have a feeling that scattered somewhere throughout The Project must be thousands of footnotes and links referring to GPO Access addresses, each of which ideally ought to be amended to the corresponding FDSys address, should one exist. Should one not exist, I suppose some emergency archiving is called for (perhaps making use of the Wayback Machine). Do you know about this, and do you have any ideas? Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
gpoaccess.gov is linked to 1773 times on Wikipedia. Some of these are in talk pages, but the vast majority are mainspace. Is there a way to easily find the new location of the documents? If so, I can have User:DeadLinkBOT fix them. If not, can have User:WebCiteBOT quickly archive all the links, as it did for Encarta and GeoCities when they went down. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Thaddeus; I was thinking very much in terms of what happened with GeoCities, Encarta and the New York Times paywall. This document on the FDSys site, which I should have retrieved earlier, suggests that the GPO will have its own 1:1 redirects for most of the GPO Access addresses, although it still wouldn't be a bad idea to change the URL's in Wikipedia if the bots can read the redirects:
URL redirects will redirect users from content on GPO Access to content on FDsys. One-to-one redirect connections are in place for select GPO Access pages. Files in legacy databases on GPO Access will be automatically redirected to files in FDsys. In other cases, where one-to-one redirects are not possible, users will be redirected to the FDsys home page. FDsys will remain GPO’s only site for official Government information.
Are you planning to do anything with this before GPO Access goes down forever on Friday, Thaddeus, or are you waiting to see what happens after then to "files in legacy databases"? (I'm not sure if that refers to the GPO's "legacy databases" or to legacy databases like Wikipedia's and those of other parts of the Federal government.) And it's not clear to me what would be the cases where 1:1 redirects are not possible (in which case the redirect is to FDSys's home page, no doubt to the bewilderment of the Wikipedia-reading clicker); if we knew where those redirects aren't possible, of course, those would be the pages to archive here — in the absence of legitimate copyright, privacy, legal or security issues. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to do anything before the cut off date due to pressing real life concerns. Hopefully, any problems will be able to be solved post cut off. Let me know if it looks liek any help will be needed doing so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that sample page from The Congressional Record seemed to redirect fine through the old link. The GPO Access home page and some of its sub-pages are still up. [This isn't actually an immediate Wikipedian concern of mine, since I don't think I've put down too many GPO Access links (the Congressional roll calls I've footnoted are through another source). But I did run across that shut-down notice while discussing the U.S. Code in answering a Ref. Desk question and while making some non-Wikipedian inquiries. And (with Encarta and GeoCities in the back of my mind) I thought it might be worth an effort to stop our existing links from dying.] I wasn't planning to do a patrol and fix of all 1,300+ links myself, since I know nothing about bots, but if a bot could at least survey the links, we might know something more. If the GPO is using a particular formula in its redirects to translate the links for a particular class of pages (e.g. the Budget, the Cong'l Directory) from their GPO Access URL's to their FDSys URL's, then the bot could of course just use that formula on Wikipedia's links, once we find the appropriate formula for that class. If there's a reasonable number (fewer than 200) of remaining links to check manually, a human editor could go through FDSys's indices to find a valid equivalent for each. If human editors can't find an equivalent on FDSys, or if there are too many leftovers to check easily, then perhaps an archiving bot could make WP copies while they're still up at GPO Access. Sorry to take about three times as many words as necessary to state the obvious to someone who already knows more than I do. I hope your outside concerns are resolved or at least appeased. Best wishes —— Shakescene (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this case we should mention the country ame proper (as wed do in Holland/Netherlands vs. Dutch) [4]. Suggest taking it out of the wikilink and writing El Salvador's wikilink)Parliamentary election(end wikilink)(Lihaas (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
Just to be clear, you are requesting I change "Salvadoran elections" to "El Salvador's elections", or something similar. Correct?
Kandahar shooting
Would you be opposed to the removal of the term "spree" from the Kandahar shooting page? The reason I ask is that I saw your explanation on the talk page. I'd also like to move it to "Kandahar Shooting" as that generates 4,480,000 hits on Google as opposed to the current title which generates 168,000. The convention on Wikipedia seems to be to call these things shootings without the additional characterization. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On 20 March 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Scroogle, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 2007 it was reported that Scroogle was becoming the preferred search engine of Internet civil libertarians? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Scroogle.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
sorry to bother you again but an issue has come up elsewhere in which i more that perfectly and civilly asked for an opinion with nothing untoward, yet the responder for some reason comes up with out-of-the-blue attacks not discussing content. This one boggles me completely. can you take a look and see if im wrong and what was wrong on my part (if thats the case)Lihaas (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2012 March newsletter
We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! Grapple X (submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's Cwmhiraeth (submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's Casliber (submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.
It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving 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) 23:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the link is already behind a paywall, there isn't anything the bot can do. The article makes it sound like the wall is already up, but I'll see what I can do ASAP. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
hello, Recently i saw a contributions of an IP address Special:Contributions/182.183.128.0/17 and this ip was blocked by you at first you made its expiry for 1 month but later a minute you changed block setting with an expiry of 1 month
Now one month has passed please expire its block Because 3 months is too much for blocking an IP address so plzzzzz unblock this user or expire it as of 15 April,2012 and he is my best friend he loves editing wikipedia and he has made very good contributions at other places....Special:Unblock/182.183.128.0/17 i hope you will do this plzzzzzzz do it....... Khan810 (talk·contribs) 10:48, 6 April 2012
Not done - This IP range has repeatedly disrupted the encyclopedia and was blocked for 3 months by User:NawlinWiki. I merely extended the block a week or two when the user continued to try to evade the block. If you friend wishes to edit, (s)he needs to request an account at http://toolserver.org/~acc --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, surprisingly it made it seems to have made it through the PROD waiting period at the end of March (when I wasn't around to notice either.) Nice work on turning it into an article after restoration. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.
For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2012 April newsletter
Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's Grapple X (submissions) remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's Casliber (submissions) was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's Muboshgu (submissions) coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.
65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of bothMatthewedwards (submissions) andGrandiose (submissions), the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, Ealdgyth (submissions) earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article, Dana Boomer (submissions) earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by Stone (submissions) to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. Jarry1250 (submissions) managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.
An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions), for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it 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 receiving 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) 23:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You claim casting is now underway, they already have got season 9 done, there casting for ten. They have already released the trailer for season 9, so how is it a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.22.149 (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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) 23:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:ShaolinMonkSuspendedOnSpears.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:ReedLuplauOnSuperstarsOfDance.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
A few years back you deleted the article I had created for my favorite energy candy Buzz Bites. (I also love Foosh Energy Mints and would like to redo the article I created for them, too). These products give people like me, who don't drink coffee, an alternative source of caffeine. I have tried many such products and these are by far the best. The company who makes them somehow found a way to mask the bitterness of caffeine. Penguin mints are yummy, but only have 7 mg of caffeine, versus the 100 in Buzz Bites. People who buy Buzz Bites or see them around will check the internet to see what they are all about and Wikipedia is a good first place to look for reliable information.
I recently worked on an updated version of the article which I have pasted below the text of this message for your review.
Here are some reasons for recreating this page.
Notability:
Buzz Bites were the first chocolates to be enhanced with extra caffeine.
They have lasted the test of time as an avalanche of copycat products have come and gone.
They have been available nationwide and internationally for 8 years.
Reliable sources for this article include: Fortune Small Business Magazine, Money.cnn.com, Time, and the Orange County Register
So have a look when you have a chance and let me know what you think, if you would be so kind.
Hello. I wasn't actually responsible for deletion of the article in question. It was deleted via the articles for deletion process. My only involvement was userfying the article for another user when they requested it.
In any case, I have now restored the article and moved it into the Article Incubator. I did some cursory research on the subject and it seems Vroom Foods is clearly notable. The Buzz Bites themselves are debatable, but certainly could be covered in an article about the company. As such, my suggestion would be to rework the material you've written slightly to make the article about the Vroom company. Buzz Bites can then redirect to the appropriate section of the main article.
Feel free to overwrite the original articlewith your text or use the original as a starting point. In either case, the original has some links you may find helpful for expanding the article.
Let me know if you need any help with the article. I will see what I can do to "save" it myself within the next few days if you don't get to it. Hopefully together, we can make a quality article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I come to you with my tail between my legs, trying not to regurgitate all that crow I've been eating today, in order to beg you for help.
I wasn't able to find enough interesting stuff about the company as you had previously suggested. So after months of pondering how to do that without coming up with an answer, I just went ahead and recreated what I thought were delete proof articles for Buzz Bites and Foosh today. Already they are being listed for speedy deletion. Any ideas as to what I can do? Any help would be appreciated.
On 12 June 2012, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2012 Rakhine State riots, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
Just wanted to say nice job with the update and thanks for the nom. This may have been over-promoted, but I watch plenty of TV and I had no idea it was taking place. One of the main reasons I watch ITN/C is to find out about stories which almost made it to the main page. Glad this one did. Cheers. --IP98 (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I hope you enjoyed reading the article. As stated in the nom, I am working on bringing it to GA status, so any suggestions you have for improvement would be welcomed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to want an exhaustive list, aren't you? Start with the first six, they're major metropolitan papers and will have thousands of links right now. I'll work up a list of everything. Josh Parris10:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed you put in some ref tags linking to a ref with "MediaBistro" as the name, but there is no such reference. I'm confused. --UnQuébécois (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
I've never heard of nations only enforcing their most basic laws in response to criticism, can you link for me these sources you state to have which state this?
Also can you source this very odd sentence "The case has also been cited as an excellent example of how the internet is empowering ordinary people in a society known for censorship and heavy-handed government rule."
And far less important, isn't the title a little odd? It sounds like the titular woman was aborted, but w/e.
Sadly, the thing that makes Feng's case notable is that the government actually did somethign about it. Here are some quotes which hopefully address your concerns (both sentences in question are a summary of other information in the article):
"In years past, Feng’s forced abortion would have happened with little public reaction, but Internet-based social media tools allow individual Chinese to take their stories directly to the people and are forcing the government to address complaints." Washington Post
"In response to the furore, the local government in Ankang launched an investigation." Irish Times
"Even three years ago, Ms Feng’s suffering might have gone unnoticed outside the remote village in the north-western province of Shaanxi where she lives—just another statistic in China’s family-planning programme. But her relatives uploaded the graphic pictures onto the internet, and soon microblogs had flashed them to millions of people across the country." (The Economist)
"The outrage has prompted Chinese authorities to launch an investigation" (Epoch Times)
"The investigation was prompted by outrage online over photos that showed the woman lying next to her aborted fetus" (Bloomberg)
"And one of the remarkable things is that very similar cases have happened for years... the case is a dramatic demonstration of exactly why the Communist Party had reason to be afraid of the Internet." (New Yorker)
Hopefully the above quotes are sufficient to show that 1) abuses of human rights in the name of family plannings are normally ignored and 2) the Internet is the main reason this case got out.
As to the title, I am certainly open to alternate suggestions. Personally, I would prefer the simple title "Feng Jianmei", but that is out per WP:BLP1E naming conventions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2012 June newsletter
Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's igordebraga (submissions), who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's Grapple X (submissions), whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's Muboshgu (submissions), with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.
A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. 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) 11:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, archiving on demand is not a current feature of the bot, but is one I have planned. Thanks for reminding me that I need to work on the bot, as I've neglected it for a while. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thaddeus, the DYK rules are clear that the person who proposes a hook should not be the one to review it. Since I'd proposed the most recent hook for Goodwin Heart Pine, it would have been inappropriate for me to approve my own hook. So that's why I was hoping you'd return to review the nomination, and thanks for doing so. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother but you're the first person that came to mind when I had a question regarding information about living people. I've been working to clean up and balance the article of Enrique Peña Nieto for over a month. The only section that I haven't touched in some time is his Gaffes section. Anyways, what's your take on it? Should the info be summarized into a paragraph like CNN did in this article? Or should ALL of it be kept like it was discussed in the talk page? I don't want editors to think I'm trying to favor this politician, which would likely be the case if I decide to summarize or entirely remove the section. Thank you, and sorry for the long post. Good day.ComputerJA (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bother at all - I am always glad to help out however I can. In general, a controversy section is a bad idea (and this is just a controversy section under a different name). Singling out controversy can give it undue weight by over emphasizing unimportant things, or reduce its impact by shielding it from more positive events. In other words, such sections can work for or against the subject, but rarely are neutral.
Without intimate knowledge of the subject, it is hard to say what is important enough for inclusion here. I do note that all these things happened during the presidential campaign. Whatever is important to the campaign (i.e. things that had a real impact) should be included in the campaign section. Things that are trivial should be removed. If Peña Nieto is particularly gaffe prone (i.e. more than a normal high-profile politician), then a summary paragraph or two max can appear in the in the public perception section.
Incidentally, the "Televisa controversy" and "Yo Soy 132 movement" subsections should also be moved up into the career-related sections. The "public perception" should *only* be about how Peña Nieto is perceived - not a catch all for negative material.
Thank you! I just posted my opinion on the article's talk page. I'll let you know how everything ended. Again, thanks! Good day. ComputerJA (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK Derya Büyükuncu
Hi. Thanks for your review. Tried to reword and added refs. Please chack again. BTW, would appreciate a note posted to my talk page if anything still not OK. CeeGee (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron GA Review
I have addressed the issues you brought up in the review, and ask for some possible assistance in some reference re-formatting. Thanks a bunch! 72.184.164.159 (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a taco for your hard work! Thank you for giving me some advice when I came to your talk page. Keep it up and stay in touch. Take care! ComputerJA (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at this: it was apparently nominated by a sock of Oakley77, who'd been banned from nominating or reviewing for the good article process until November 2012. As such, it would be most appropriate to wind up the review immediately as a "not listed". Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees Cwmhiraeth (submissions) as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees Grapple X (submissions) in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees Muboshgu (submissions) in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's Ruby2010 (submissions) follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.
Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! 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) 22:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Connor Jaeger
On 1 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Connor Jaeger, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Connor Jaeger qualified for the 2012 Olympics on what was only his fifth-ever swim of the 1500-meter freestyle in competition? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Connor Jaeger. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 7 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yi Siling, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Yi Siling was the first person to qualify for the 2012 Summer Olympics and the first person to win a gold medal at the Games? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Yi Siling. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
As I tried to explain in my closing statement, the initial wording of the question caused people to answer in a specific way. Of course the topic is "usually inappropriate" as is just about any broad category on nouns. (As a random example, of course it is usually inappropriate to create articles on people's pets, but that in no way implies no pet is ever notable.) Thus on strength of argument there is no "ban" against "X on Twitter" articlesCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).. Additionally, at least one such article (Obama's) has survived AfD with consensus to keep, so any "meta-rule" needs to take that into account. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ThaddeusB. You have new messages at Talk:Chen Guangcheng/GA1 . Message added 15:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Orphaned non-free media (File:ShaolinMonkSuspendedOnSpears.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:ShaolinMonkSuspendedOnSpears.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Olympics
Hi. How difficult would it be to code something which does this to my Olympic bio stubs. Basically finding the url entry on the website for that person and which enters the date of birth to the article and category reading off the website?♦ Dr. Blofeld11:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the slow reply, I have been unavailable the last week or so... Technologically, it would not be difficult to do edits like that via bot. Culturally, it is less certain as some members of the community have been very hesitant to let bots contribute any content for fear of "errors". (Personally, I feel such objections are silly as a bot is less likely to make a mistake than a human.) I would nonetheless be interested in pursuing the project if it still needs done. Let me know, ThaddeusB (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gettting Wikimedians to the Olympic Games
Hi. I am part of an effort to get Wikimedians access to the 2016 Summer Olympics as accredited reporters and photographers. Part of this effort includes covering the 2012 Summer Paralympics. Two Wikimedians have credentials to attend these games as reporters through Wikimedia Australia. As English Wikipedia does not allow original reporting, this is largely through Wikinews with a project page found at Wikinews:Paralympic Games. If you are interested in helping to get Wikimedians to the next Summer Olympics,I'd encourage you to assist with Wikinews efforts, and also to work on all language 2012 Summer Paralympic Wikipedia articles before, during and after the Games to demonstrate a track record of success. Thank you. --LauraHale (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
Grapple X (submissions) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
Miyagawa (submissions) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
Ruby2010 (submissions) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
Casliber (submissions) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
Muboshgu (submissions) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
Dana Boomer (submissions) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
Sasata (submissions) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.
On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. 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) 00:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reviving interest in the Article Incubator
I notice that you commented on Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator and suggested that you are interested in trying to revive the project. I have a similar interest in doing that, but I felt a viable way to get that accomplished was to get a team of about 4-5 core supporters who were committed to really getting it going before commencing. I could push it further in terms of trying to hit up some of the various mailing lists, put something on the Signpost, or otherwise spread interest in the project, but getting that core group has been somewhat of a struggle. Defining the scope of the project has also been somewhat of a problem as even the idea of an Article Incubator has become almost a mirror to whoever is contemplating the concept and means so many different things to so many people.
Anyway, thank you for your interest. I really would like to see you help revive the project, and would like to offer my name as somebody to help you out in that endeavor as well. --Robert Horning (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Change always starts somewhere... Even if it is only you and I who are committed at first, maybe we can get something going. I have some ideas to spread interest once the article incubator gets going again, but first things first. Let's nail down the basics first. What do you envision for the project? That is, where should it concentrate its efforts. The least controversial route may be to start by rescuing abandoned userspace drafts. Also, where do you see your interest in the project? - writing content, finding stuff to save, maintenance, etc.
One of the first things to tackle is to simply go through the stack of existing articles in the incubator area (renamed under the incubator) and determine the disposition of those articles. Some could be rescued and others simply deleted. More in general, a reboot of the project really shouldn't be dealing with that older stuff that was never completely dealt with in the past and a rebooted project should try to start with a clean sheet... although the backlog could be interesting to review.
My main area of direct interest is primarily with article rescue, although it would be interesting to also perform a survey over what kind of articles were successful in being incubated. There are success stories, where articles saved from the AfD grinder eventually made their way to main namespace articles under no threat of further deletion discussions. Identifying some of the elements of success may also provide some clues for what things could be beneficial to Wikipedia and since they are success stories they can be demonstrations for why other people could and should be involved with the incubator.
Something should change in terms of the bureaucratic overhead, and if that is being really selective in terms of what qualifies for inclusion into the incubator or some time limits on content revisions... there are things that certainly could be procedural changes to how things happen in the project. What was happening is broken, so some changes are necessary.
Summing up, my view is that the incubator can act as something to catch articles falling through cracks that aren't up to par with Wikipedia standards but have real potential to become important and even essential articles to the project. It is to provide a 3rd direction (or fourth in the case of a merge option) for content being debated in the AfD areas as well as articles being developed in a "new editor boot camp". Certainly the incubator could put a much friendlier face onto Wikipedia than is currently the case. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Superstars of Dance
Hi Thadeus. I'm happy to give you as much time as you need to trim/alter those edit summaries, because I'd like us to come to some kind of consensus on this issue. However, please see my most recent comments on the talk page as regards what is acceptable and what is not (under policy, not my opinion, let me emphasize) for a show summary on a Wikipedia article. Specifically, all references to the crowd's reactions or the skill that dancers display must be excised. That is subjective orginal research and is not all supported by the sources (which all unchallengeable content on Wikipedia must be); even if those assessments did come from the sources, not one of the sources cited in the episode summaries is an acceptable content-supporting source for a Wikipedia article under WP:Verifiability. And even if those two facts weren't the case, then those mentions would still be un-encylopedic in tone. Look, I sympathize with your position here, I really do -- sometimes its very hard to find good non-primary sources for tv shows, especially performance shows. Sometimes we have to just go with the show itself as the main source of verifiability, even if this is strictly speaking not allowed by policy. But when we do that, we need to be extra sure that we are adding only the most empirical, readily-verifiable, and non-contentious information. That means every single last reference to how the crowd/audience reacted, and every single last subjective statement about how the dancers performed must be removed (unless you can find new and explicit sources which support those statements and even then they have to be accredited, since they are subjective descriptions). I think that's a good balance. If we can't come to an understanding on this, I'm going to have to RfC the issue. And if that happens, I can pretty much guarantee that a lot more content is going to be removed than what I think needs to go, because virtually nothing on that page is properly sourced and there a people who are a lot more strict to the rule of WP:Verifiability than I am. If you wish to spitball, discuss or jointly draft anything with me, I'm at your disposal and hoping that we can come to a middle ground on this issue. Snow (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Real cute. You say you want to work with me here, but on the talk page you accuse me of dishonesty and generally trash everything I've done. Which is your true feelings? --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ping
Just wanted to check in on the status of the GA review at Chen Guangcheng. No rush if you need more time, but if you're at all like me, I imagine it may simply have slipped your mind. Also, I saw your work at Forced abortion of Feng Jianmei, which looks great. Let me know if you'd like a hand with the consolidation or other work there. Cheers, Homunculus (duihua) 14:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know these comments were ages ago and my reply may not even be seen, but I just wanted to say I appreciate the kind thoughts. Luckily, nothing was wrong - I just got super busy with real life and neglected to check in on Wikipedia for 3 or 4 months. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GAR Notice
HouseholdHacker, an article that you may be interested in, has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article.
On August 2009, SPhilbrick noted in his comments about the deletion that (Red5 Media Server) "May be notable someday, but not yet"
I'm writing to you to know whether we can discuss that assertion, because in my opinion, the situation has changed.
For example, if you perform a search in Google Scholar, there are quite a lot of articles in scientific journals and conference proceedings that cite Red5 Media Server:
Thus, would it be possible to reconsider the deletion of that page? Should I start a discussion page or any other procedure in order to ask for such a reconsideration?
We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. Grapple X (submissions) currently leads, followed by Sasata (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.
It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!
In the unlikely event you still care and see this (I've been absent the last 4 months or so), the first line of the article read "The Murphy brake is a drum brake with shoes that pinch the drum via a rotating fork." The article was unreferenced other than a link to a couple patents. In short, it was probably original research and/or written by the inventor of the product. I couldn't find any more than a couple passing mentions of the device in any reliable source. However, if you want the article restored, it can be done so without question as an expired PROD. Let me know, ThaddeusB (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to Cwmhiraeth (submissions), our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009), Sturmvogel 66 (2010) and Hurricanehink (2011). Our final standings were as follows:
Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.
The featured article award goes to Grapple X (submissions), for four featured articles in the final round.
The good article award also goes to Grapple X (submissions), for 19 good articles in the second round.
The list award goes to Muboshgu (submissions), for three featured lists in the final round.
The topic award goes to Grapple X (submissions), for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
The did you know award goes to Cwmhiraeth (submissions), for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
The news award goes to ThaddeusB (submissions), for 10 in the news items in round 3.
The picture award goes to Grandiose (submissions), for two featured pictures in round 2.
Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to Cwmhiraeth (submissions).
Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Davis Tarwater 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. Batard0 (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey - Just wanted to check in on the Tarwater GA. Seven days is coming up, and I really don't want to fail the article as it's so close to meeting the criteria. Since you seem to be away, I'm going to solicit help from other editors who have worked on the article who may be able to address the minor issues brought up there. I hope you don't mind. --Batard0 (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A note that I'm planning to fail the article later today for lack of response from the nominator. I tried to find other people to address the concerns, but have been unsuccessful. Please contact me when you're back; if you fix these issues and relist the article, I'll be happy to pass it quickly. --Batard0 (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nik Wallenda GAC
Hi ThaddeusB,
I completed the GAC for Nik Wallenda at the beginning of the month, and neglected to inform you of it here because I assumed that you were committed to the article. I saw today that you haven't edited since August, so it was obviously a faulty assumption. My apologies. I'll give you another week before I'll have to fail it for lack of response to the review. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
_by_Ron.jpg)
.svg){kind=link}
){kind=link}