User:RenamedUser jaskldjslak901/Archive44
Hi, Secret. I'm not really sure what's going on with this, but I thought I'd let you know I requested semi-protection. It seemed pointless just to keep reverting people who won't explain. Rivertorch (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Me neither considering the picture quality and such, all the accounts were just blocked as sockpuppets however. Secret account 18:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I saw that, and I figured there'd just be more socks in the drawer. (I would say "on the farm", but that metaphor has never worked for me.) Rivertorch (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
RE: Selena
[edit]Hey I've been inactive for the past month and am back 
. I read your message about wanting to work on the article and am very pleased to work with you on it. Just tell me when and I'll be ready. Best, Jonatalk to me 15:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
January 2013
[edit]
Hello, and thank you for removing vandalism from WP:ATP. This is much appreciated, but unfortunately your repair was not successful in restoring the article to its pre-vandalised state. For future reference, it is better to deal with vandalism by checking the article's page history to determine how it appeared before it was vandalised. You can then restore the whole article, or the relevant part of it, to an appropriate earlier version. If you simply delete the visible vandalism then any content removed or overwritten by the vandal is lost. See How to deal with vandalism for details. Thank you. Just an FYI -- you missed a couple, rather subtle edits by the IP. S. Rich (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
RfA
[edit]Secret, are you still willing to nominate me? If so, I am contemplating doing it at the end of January or beginning of February. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes I am willing, I did see your email, but late (I get flooded with emails everyday). I will reply back though email. Thanks Secret account 05:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, could you give me some updates on how the review is going? Thank you! -- Nascar1996(Talk • Contribs) 16:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Got busy, will finish the review later on today. Sorry about that. Secret account 05:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
GA Thanks
[edit] | This user helped promote Jim Umbricht to good article status. |
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Jim Umbricht, which has recently become a GA. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013
[edit]
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
On now.
[edit]--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Mailbox
[edit]
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I replied back. Secret account 20:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
WikiCup 2013 January newsletter
[edit]
Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. 
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader (
Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 
12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:
12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
Buggie111 (submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
Spencer (submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
Status (submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
Adam Cuerden (submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.
Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.
This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:
Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.
Also, a quick mention of 
The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?
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) 01:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
All right, after a few issues I got that straightened out. Still waiting for the conom statements, but whenever that happens you can answer the questions and get it going. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)
. Though you may have forgotten a few of the "past RfAs"... Legoktm (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Jim Thome
[edit]Hey Secret. I don't mean to bother you as you seem to have some bigger fish to fry, so to speak, at the moment (good luck, by the way...you'll have my vote!), but you said at the Baseball Wiki-Project talk page that you'd be willing to PR Jim Thome for me. I didn't know if perhaps you'd forgotten or if it was on the bottom of a long to-do list or something, but I was wondering if you would still do that. No rush, and I certainly don't mean to nag. Good luck with the RFA! Go Phightins! 19:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I will do it sometime this week, of course I'm busy with school and the RFA, but I did promise you and Thome always been an interesting subject in my opinion. Secret account 21:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
It regards the second RFA, I saw the reversal, I had to revert and I explained why through email though I respect your opinion. It's a sensitive issue. Secret account 07:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I got your e-mail. If you don't want people to look at your previous RfA, don't respond to someone's question by telling them to look at your previous RfA. -- tariqabjotu 07:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
question..
[edit]First: I apologize for my curiosity. Now, years ago I remember seeing you around this joint, so you're not some n00b to me. I've seen you make reference to school, and it made wonder about something. Since any answer to my question would have absolutely NO bearing on an RfA, I thought I'd ask here. What are you studying? .. and when do you graduate? (or have you already?). If that's personal information you'd rather not disclose, I'm fine with that ... I was just curious. — Ched : ? 20:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I am majoring in history, and I'm graduating next spring and I plan to move forward with a master's degree and hopefully a PH'D. My health did delay my studies, as I was supposed to graduate fall of 2011. Secret account 21:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I know your username yes, I think you were active in IRC as well at one point. I need to remember :/. I remember many of the old-timers, but I need to be reminded. Secret account 22:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm starting to remember, you still go on IRC, I'm on right now. Secret account 23:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- LOL ... yea, I did the IRC thing back then. Ya know, even as a kid, you were a damned good admin. back then. You've been through hell and back and you always found a way to make sure that you never compromised the wiki. I admit that I'm a grumpy old fart, but there's a few of you kids that I really respect. If you decide to stick this RfA out ... then I'll support ya. — Ched : ? 23:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Lol, thanks for that compliment. Of course I plan to stick this RFA out! Why should I back down or worry about it? Secret account 21:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's just my twisted thinking - but it sure seems to me that there's plenty of people dancing around an unseen elephant in the room. Very tempting to point it out. — Ched : ? 08:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I have some feeling about that, now I wait. Secret account 06:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- If ya ever want to get something off your chest, but outside the spotlight of wiki .. my email is always open to you. — Ched : ? 13:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
RfA: thank you for everything
[edit]Secret, first let me thank you for everything you've done. I may not have been the best RfA candidate at the end of the day, but I hope no one thinks I'm an ingrate. I regret the outcome in my RfA less than I do its potential impact on your own; hopefully, we will not see a repeat of the comment that was deleted earlier this morning. In all events, I hope you were not disappointed in me as a candidate. I feel like I failed you and my other supporters. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I was slightly disappointed concerning the circumstances, like I told you by email, Fluffernutter oppose vote is the one that sums my feelings the most. But you will do fine, RFA has always been a huge learning experience as you learned first hand, and I'm happy I had the opportunity to nominate you, despite the result. Secret account 21:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Let someone else do it
[edit]Secret - please do yourself a favor and do not take controversial actions. Let someone else do the reverting on your RFA.--v/r - TP 16:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
It was in good faith, and I don't think it was controversial, as completely removing an oppose vote isn't recommended during a RFA. But as the candidate you are right, I don't think I should have been the one reverting his mistake. I'll let someone else do it, I apologize. Secret account 16:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've done it - agree your restoration was good faith but you should leave it to others as it is your RFA. GiantSnowman 16:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Yep I agree with that, partly a lack of judgement in my part. Thanks to both of you for understanding. :) Secret account 17:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
[edit]
|
Hi Secret. I hope you're feeling well and having a decent day. Good luck with the RFA. I wish I could put in another support vote.  Take care. INeverCry 23:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
|
I prefer coffee ;) but yeah I'm not worried about it, why should I be? Thanks Secret account 23:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
RFA Q4 typo (I presume?)
[edit]Hi Secret, re: question 4 in your RFA, I presume your use of the word "etymologist" was caused by autocorrect going haywire? An etymologist studies the meaning of words, and I'm not sure what relevance that would have to your health. :-) I'm just curious as to what you meant there. Good luck in your RFA! Graham87 14:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Aha, got it, I think: "endocrinologist"? You can change it if you like. Graham87 14:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Changed it, yea spell check gone wrong. Secret account 01:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
[edit]Thanks for defending my talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem, the vandal hit multiple user talk pages bot like style, including mine and did a mass revert. Secret account 01:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations, you are an administrator!
[edit]
Hello Secret. I am pleased to report that I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Happy editing, and happy adminning. 28bytes (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- May I be the first to say: Congrats! You deserve it! (X! · talk) · @410 · 08:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats - it's good to have you back! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations! It's quite heartening, isn't it? Btw, could you please complete your SUL account. If you are having a SUL conflict, ask for help from stewards here. Have a good day--Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations, Secret. Well done. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats indeed!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats from me too, and enjoy your new buttons! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats from me too Secret, I think the buttons are pretty much in the same place as you left them the last time. More importantly, I wish you the absolute best with your health - and hope you have a long and happy life. Now go block Jimbo, and delete the main page ... :-) — Ched : ? 13:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, I'm really happy with this result and am quite pleased for you. Maybe RFA is changing and even I will have a chance one day. Ha!. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 13:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats Secret; now I have another sports-admin to bug to semi-protect a page in wake of an unofficial yet still reported transaction. Bagumba, you're now off the hook
. And by the way, Daniel Case is PRing Jim Thome, so you're off the hook for that one too. Thanks. --Go Phightins! 13:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Very glad to see that you passed, congratulations :) Mark Arsten (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations!!! --j⚛e deckertalk 15:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I couldn't participate ... I didn't want to participate at RfA while the big RfC on RfA is going on ... but I'm very happy to see it all worked out. Congratulations and best wishes. - Dank (push to talk) 16:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats --Guerillero | My Talk 16:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much, I would offer a recall proposal soon like I promised in the RFA. Secret account 18:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, if I need any help I would ask any of you guys, as the tools significantly advanced from 2009 to now. Again I'm about to offer a recall proposal soon, I'm discussing it with several highly trusted users. I did some backlog killing in WP:AFC, and a few things that the tools were needed for. I should get back on track with me and Wehwalt project on Babe Ruth. Good to be back. Secret account 21:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I had hoped to be the first to congratulate you; I seem to be the fifteenth! Any advice with the new, sparkling-clean mop, please feel free to ask.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- As I'm sure you could see from my (probably too fervent) support, I took an especially personal interest in your RfA, and was rooting for you all the way. I'm very happy that it turned out the right way. From the bottom of my heart, I wish you the very best going forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations, Secret. Wish you good luck with the new tools. Torreslfchero (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Deletion of Article Rajit Gadh
[edit]Hello Secret,
I am writing in regards to the speedy deletion of article Rajit Gadh. I saw that phrases in the article matched a URL to the bio on IEEE.org site. However the original source of the bio is from the UCLA SMERC website. If adding the creative commons license to the bio on that page (official page) - what's to stop the bots from picking up other sources and flagging the article again?
Thanks. Ucsglarc (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Precious
[edit]
Golden Era
Thank you for quality articles on the Golden Era of baseball, for your recovery as an editor and admin, and for your support of others, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations!
[edit]
|
Hey Secret! Congratulations on your successful RfA! That's very impressive! Thanks and have a nice day! :) Mediran (t • c) 10:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC) |
Some falafel for you!
[edit]
|
Congrats on getting your tools back! You've truly deserved it! hmssolent\Let's convene My patrols 11:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC) |
TAFI
[edit] Hello,
The Project is almost ready to hit the Main Page, where it will be occupying a section just below "Did you Know" section. Three article from the weekly batch of 7 will be displayed randomly at the main page, the format of which can be seen at the Main Page sandbox. There is also an ongoing discussion at the Main page talk over the final details before we can go forward with the Main Page. If you have any ideas to discuss with everyone else, please visit the TAFI Talk Page and join in on the ongoing discussions there. You are also invited to add new nominations, and comment and suport on the current ones at the Nominations page. You can also help by helping in the discussions at the Holding Area. Above all, please do not forget to improve our current Today's Articles for Improvement Thank you and hoping to have some productive work from you at the Project, |
A beer for you!
[edit]
|
Most RfA's are downright obnoxious and demeaning experiences. However, yours made the average RfA look like Mr. Toad's Wild Ride. Congrats on both keeping your cool through the whole thing and emerging on the other side, mop in hand. Trusilver 12:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC) |
Concerning my "disruptive editing"
[edit]Savior Bacon is the main deity of a real religion, called Baconism. You banned Scientologists from editing Wikipedia, not Baconists.
I have the right to create pages about the religion of Baconism because it actually exists. If you have anything against it, that would be considered religious intolerance.
Maurice Stokes
[edit]Hello! I notice that you have extensive knowledge of tragic athlete's endings. On this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sportspeople_who_died_during_their_careers I searched for Basketball player Maurice Stokes, and I did not find his name listed. Would it be appropriate to add him to the list? And if-so, where? TY!24.0.133.234 (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Considering that his death was related to an on-game injury that he never fully recovered, it is appropriate to list Stokes on the list, under basketball. Thanks Secret account 18:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- YW.And Thank-you24.0.133.234 (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
[edit]
Message added 23:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Crazynas t 23:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
User's block template
[edit]Hi, on User talk:TR Technic I think you accidentally issued a block template other than the one you intended to; {{uw-sblock}} says they were temporarily blocked for adding spam links, when they were actually blocked indefinitely for the username which they used to add that link. (One wouldn't normally be blocked for a single offense of adding a spam link.) The block itself includes "{{uw-spamublock}}", which is what I assume you intended to use. Oh, and congrats on your brand new adminship. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, my bad. I blocked the user as an obvious spam username like you said on the report page, but I'm still getting used to the block templates, haven't used them since 2009. Thanks Secret account 23:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Comments on my comments
[edit]Thanks for your comments. I've received the same comments from user Mark Arsten. As previously stated, I've requested a semi protection for the page and requested an administrator help due the other user has been placing comment that does not belong with no actual references but media guesses not actual data from Catholic Church, the real place to find. I placed comments about this. Please review protection requests. I am collaborating in the same page in Wikipedia Spanish and remove the same comments. Please review history and talk page. --Mario Soto (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Secret. Are you sure this is a hoax? [1] [2] Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I undeleted it, my google search came up with complete different mentions and we can both agree its not an a7. Secret account 17:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure whether you missed or you ignored Gadfium's edit summary. It suggests to me at least that you might be going a little too fast with the delete button. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes I didn't see it, I saw the original prod reasoning and the removal by the article creator, and the search was complete different results. I apologize, maybe doing speedy deletions other than the most common sense ones though an iPad isn't a smart idea .Secret account 17:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe not! :) Thanks. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations!
[edit]Been too busy to hang out on IRC for the last week and a half, but I wanted to congratulate you on the tools (finally). Best, m.o.p 19:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
|
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL. 21:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
|
RM backlog
[edit]As a new admin, I hope that I can encourage you to take a stab at closing a dozen of the RM backlog requests. The way WP:RM is set up, requests can be closed at any time, but are not intended to remain open for longer than seven days, meaning that all should be closed before they reach the WP:RM#Backlog. In other words, after the backlog is cleared out, standard procedure should be to close all of the requests just before they reach the backlog. In some cases, though, this means relisting, which also should be done before reaching the backlog. Closing instructions are at WP:RMCI. If each new admin closes a few requests the backlog can be cleared. Apteva (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I never really been good with recent moves, I'll peek in and see but I have other backlogs I want to take care of, such as the terrible declined attacks and spam backlog on WP:AFC stuck in the history, and I'm going back to complete some article projects as well. Thanks anyways. Secret account 06:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Congrats on your RfA!
[edit]
|
New Administrator Award |
| Congratulations on your recent successful RfA! Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 05:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC) |
- Ack, I completely missed your RfA, but congratulations! You deserved to get the tools back. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Bureaucratship
[edit]- I would strongly advise you decline this request for a particularly lower chance that you would pass at this time. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm not interested, nor never been interested in become a bureaucrat. First its the timing, second I never been great with technical stuff, which a crat needs to have some understanding from. Secret account 02:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Properly good.
[edit]This I liked. You could have just gone with a head-count keep and been done with it. Instead, your close acknowledges a couple of well-framed (I thought) delete arguments and a genuine absence of consensus. Makes me very happy I supported your RFA. Properly good. Stalwart111 06:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Newbie making non-standard edits to NFL infoboxes
[edit]Secret, can you keep an eye on this fella: [3]? He's a newly registered user who is making formatting changes to the Infobox NFL player entries for honors and awards, contrary to WP:NFL established consensus formatting. I've tried to gently explain on his talk page, but he is non-responsive and seems determined to do it his way. We've come a long way in cleaning up these infobox entries and standardizing the formatting, and I would hate to see that work undone. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
On what planet was there no consensus? Nobody objected to deletion. Perhaps you should revisit. Toddst1 (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Documenting a merge
[edit]Hi there! I just want to ask you to please remember to document a merge on the talk pages of the source and destination articles; see the following links related to your merge of Jonathan Stonagal to List of Left Behind characters: marking the source article with {{R from merge}} and documenting the merge on the talk pages of the source and destination articles using {{Copied}} (or another similar template). Thank you, and congrats on your recent RFA success, -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Belated congrats
[edit]It has been a crazy couple of months, and I regret my timing to nominate you didn't work out. On the up side, maybe that helped you ;) Either way, I'm glad it all worked out and you were given earned the tools. It has been a long hard road for you, this one week should only be worth a few gray hairs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello Secret!
You've protected the page against sock puppetry on 18:37, 19 February 2013
But now we have the owner /vandal, with name! :)
Please have a look on the History, and talk page! Thank you! Csendesmark (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Another DragoLink08 sock puppet
[edit]Secret, head's up: [4]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Nathan Walker GAC
[edit]I went ahead and addressed your concerns for the article. Any problems just let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hey its been a couple weeks since I posted this and I haven't seen any response. Just wondering if you're going to be able to check over the review again. Thanks. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Checking now I apologize about that, I got distracted by administrative stuff as you see below, then a computer failure. Secret account 03:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello
[edit]I just noticed a deleted title on a recent changes patrol, and it gives me pause; Independent Publisher Book Award. Will you please userfy this to my user-space? I've never seen this article, but some of the first sources I reviewed leave me very curious. For example if the award was ever called an IPPY or not. Because I can hardly imagine an IPPY not being notable.—My76Strat (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Done Secret account 07:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for obliging my request. I've edited the deleted article to a form I believe warrants inclusion. I'm not trying to make waves, but I feel the article needs to return to article space by the most expeditious means. Will you either move the userfied draft back into article space, initiate a deletion review if that is more appropriate, or tell me that you do not believe the article meets the threshold of notability for inclusion. User:My76Strat/Independent Publisher Book Award Thank you.—My76Strat (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- My76Strat requested on my talk page that as the AfD nominator, I pass comment on the reworked article in their user space, which I have done here, for what it's worth. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes I did want to include Mutt Lunker as a transparent courtesy. I think based on our own disagreement regarding this subject, a deletion review is probably necessary.—My76Strat (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013
[edit]
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Your decline
[edit]What sort of a reason for decline is this? AFD didn't have enough input. There was no consensus which was more like void of consensus. Why would you want me to renominate it? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Renominate it, that's fine with me, I just can't delete anything that "survived" an AFD per policy, if not of course I would have speedied it. Secret account 21:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
WikiCup 2013 February newsletter
[edit]Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.
Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with 
Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.
Other contributors of note include:
Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
Sasata (submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
Muboshgu (submissions) and 
Wizardman (submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.- Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.
Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...
March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!
A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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) J Milburn (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
2015 MLS SuperDraft
[edit]What was the criteria for deletion? Bubbagump24 (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
That had clear consensus that the sourcing is trivial and passing in nature, while having some problems with CRYSTAL. I took the sourcing to account more than the CRYSTAL here. I could WP:USERFY it if you want. Secret account 04:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Every transaction was sourced precisely with linked references. And specifically what problems with CRYSTAL? Please provide exact wording from the WP:CRYSTAL text. Given the activity on the topic the page shouldn't have been deleted. That's why I waited until there was sufficient activity to create it. Bubbagump24 (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
There was a concern about the transactions being of WP:ROUTINE coverage. Again I took the concerns about CRYSTAL rather lightly and focused more on the sources rationale, which came up a bit late on the debate and wasn't successfully rebutted. I can WP:USERFY it like I said until more sources that cover the subject in detail, closer to the draft can be found. Secret account 18:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Yoga Psychology - Please reconsider decision
[edit]Hi, Secret... congratulations on regaining admin status. Respectfully, I request you to reconsider your Delete decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoga Psychology. I do not believe that this decision was warranted by the discussion that took place, and - to my eye at least - there was no consensus like what you described. Perhaps this article just got unlucky, coming at the end of a busy 35 minutes in which you closed 17 other AfDs, all with Delete. Perhaps those other cases warranted a Delete - I cannot say - but in this case, I don't think that result was warranted, certainly not in terms of any sort of consensus about WP:GNG. --Abhidevananda (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Nope this wasn't unlucky, AFD is not a vote count. I was evaluating the policy based consensus on that one, and another AFD (which I left alone as that needed to be relisted) while I was closing the clear cut delete consensus AFDs. I evaluated the comments carefully in this case, the "keeps" has no policy based arguments mostly WP:INHERITED comments with no other basis, while your argument was oh its listed in a library, keep. The consensus was clear there. Secret account 04:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply, Secret. I was not talking about a vote count, and I would never suggest that a decision should be taken on such a basis. I was talking about the discussion. Pardon me, but I think that you greatly oversimplify the argument presented for Keep. Just looking at what I stated, first I pointed out that the book had been independently reviewed (per WP:GNG), countering a false claim in the nomination. Next I pointed out that the book is to be found in many libraries, a threshold standard at WP:NB. Finally, I commented about translations. If you look further down the page, you will see that a very senior admin, Deb, voted Keep, remarking that "the book has a relatively impressive publication history" and subsequently clarifying that she was particularly impressed by the fact that the book had been translated into other languages. As only a Spanish translation had been mentioned by me, I amplified that point by providing evidence of translation into Malay and Chinese. I also offered to present evidence of translation into Bengali. So, excuse me, but my argument was not as flimsy as you suggest. Rather, much of what I said went directly to WP:GNG, and I have no reason to think that any of the Keep votes were not similarly grounded. Indeed, the only vote that I see in the entire debate that was based exclusively on libraries was a vote to Delete rather than Keep. So, once again, I respectfully request you to rethink your decision. There certainly was no clear consensus for Delete, as you maintain. Please understand that this is the first AfD debate where I have appealed a decision to the closing admin. I do so only because I honestly think that your decision in this case amounted to a WP:SUPERVOTE. --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry Secret but, as the first editor of the article above, I want to kindly submit to your attention the fact that this article has been proposed for deletion (from the same group of users like almost all the articles that I edit on the same topic) on the ground that the book "has failed to gain notability": 1)This is an evident False claim in the nomination. It's a fact that this assertion contained in the AfD nomination is false. Not only me and other users, but a senior admin of WP voted "keep" on this AfD sayiing "The author is clearly notable and the book has a relatively impressive publication history". 2)As pointed out from user Abhidevananda, the book is to be found in many libraries and is translated in Spanish, Malay, Bengali and Chinese. 3)There was no clear consensus for Delete. Never happened to me to discuss an admin decision after an AfD thalk, but I do it exceptionally in this case, respectfully requesting you if it's possible to rethink your decision. Thanks a lot for your understanding.--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)