Jump to content

User talk:Ks0stm/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

Wikiproject Oklahoma

This has been sent to you requesting that you respond to whether or not you are still an active member of WikiProject Oklahoma Please respond Here By following the instructions.

--Dcheagle 09:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

IP unblock request

All my editing is done from a small school I go to so everyone has the same IP adress. I was wondering if you could remove the anonymous block from my computer network. Thank you TheyCallMeFirstKlass 14:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

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.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

Community input required: lowering delist bar at FPC

You are receiving this because of your current or past association with the Featured Pictures project. Following on from several cases where closers did not observe the prescribed minimum votes required for a delisting, there is now a motion to entirely dismiss the requirement for a minimum. Please participate in the discussion as wide-ranging changes may arise.

Link: Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Delist procedure changes Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

Thanks

Thank you for the quick assist on the IP block. JACooks (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. =) Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter

WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Minnesota Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Mauritius Jivesh boodhun (submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.

  • Florida 12george1 (submissions) was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
  • Florida 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
  • Russia Sp33dyphil (submissions) was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
  • Russia Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
  • Byzantine Empire Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
  • Mauritius Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely 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 could 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 and The ed17 00:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

YGM

Hello, Ks0stm. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

→Στc. 02:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

User talk:114.229.251.187

Yes, I confess I was gradually losing my cool as the conversation trawled on. Thanks for stepping in - I was actually doing some other stuff when you offered the ice cubes, and only returned to my watchlist to discover MuZemike blocked the IP. Thanks and have some stroopwafels :) Deryck C. 23:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thanks for reminding me to stay cool when the debate became heated. Deryck C. 23:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
No problem, glad to help. =) Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 23:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Rollback/reviewer rights

Hi ! Thanks for giving me the rollback right. I notice you also gave the reviewer right - what does it do ? I can't find any information about what it does, although it seems to have been used in a trial sometime. Thanks. --He to Hecuba (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The reviewer right I gave you because you are a trusted content editor, basically in the event that they ever bring back WP:Pending changes. In that event it should function the same way as it did in the trial (or similar to it), although at the present time it doesn't do anything. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, just checking. --He to Hecuba (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Does that mean I get reviewer rights too? ;) I mean I add information and uphold the reliable sources policy.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,192,527) 01:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 Done =) Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ks0stm, I'm not sure it's wise to be handing out reviewer rights at this point. The pending changes trial is long over. 28bytes (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I don't exactly see the point of not, either, especially if (and I haven't heard anything to the contrary yet) the goal is to eventually roll out pending changes in the future. I see no real difference in giving it to them now versus when/if pending changes is rolled out again, especially seeing as it's not like it does anything unless pending changes is rolled out again. I can remove it if you really think I should, but I really don't see the point. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that we should only give people rights that they need, or intend to use, but if there's consensus otherwise I'll certainly withdraw any objections. Is/was there a discussion about this someplace? 28bytes (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I just went looking for the part I remember reading about it and it seems since I last looked the pages have all been changed to reflect the fact the user right isn't needed anymore. I've still been giving it out if I've been modifying a user's permissions and they meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Reviewing, but last I'd seen it that page didn't look anything like it does now with the failed tag at the top and referring to everything in the past tense (something like this). Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer would seem to suggest that they aren't being granted anymore. I did notice that the reviewer right has been "repurposed" for use with the article feedback tool, FWIW. 28bytes (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Useless or not useless at this time, should pending-changes protection be reintroduced, I at least wouldn't face the annoyance of having to wait for changes to be accepted even if I were the main contributor to the article. Thank you Ks0stm. :)—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,264,981) 12:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what the reviewer right does; under the typical pending changes setup, all autoconfirmed users have their changes accepted automatically, it's only IPs and non-autoconfirmed accounts that would have to wait. Anyway, I'm about to post a note on WP:AN asking for more feedback on this. 28bytes (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

WT Hell

ADMINS TIPS: Rather then just delete my page, you could at-least educate me in how I can make my page be accepted by WIKI rather then deleting it, sort it out! I'm sure i'm not the only one you admins keep deleting pages from EDUCATE us! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IllusiveMediaLtd (talk • contribs) 20:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

RE: Bad Kids

But there is no substantial content. Nothing's source. That it is a track on that album can be figured out from the album article. How is this not an easy deletion? Dan56 (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Mostly because it slips through the cracks in the speedy deletion criteria. It's got context enough to know what it is, so it can't go under A1, and the one sentence on the article prevents A3 for no content. The next closest is A9, but that's prevented because Lady Gaga has a Wikipedia article. If you really want to get it deleted, I recommend AfD and if the !voters there think it fits speedy criteria they'll say so and it'll get speedy deleted. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

Talkback I

Hello, Ks0stm. You have new messages at Kondicherry's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Note to self

  1. Do an update of WP:METEO, WP:SEVERE, and WP:NTROP members
  2. Consider a newsletter (for the three projects combined?) if enough members would be interested in one
  3. Update NTROP template to match handling of classes with those of METEO and SEVERE
  4. Brush up standards for tornado outbreak articles (and perhaps weather events in general)
  5. Split METEO subprojects' articles into separate class/importance tables? (Ask tropical project for help)
  6. Add Blizzard/Winter storm, Wildfire, Cold wave, and Flash flood to METEO core articles table
  7. Update core articles section for SEVERE and NTROP
  8. Create to do page/list for METEO, SEVERE, and NTROP like with {{WikiProject Kansas}}

--Ks5stm (talk) [alternative account of Ks0stm] 19:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token 012c44b197b58075a88d5e79d656d734

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 17:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

WikiCup 2012 February newsletter

Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions), again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was United Kingdom Tigerboy1966 (submissions), thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were Minnesota Ruby2010 (submissions), Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), Wisconsin Miyagawa (submissions) and Scotland Casliber (submissions). February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from Minnesota 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) 00:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

BOOM! Studios

You might want to see Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#.7B.7Bla.7CBoom.21_Studios.7D.7D since you've previously protected that page, along with my comments at that link. I think what's really needed is a "shock block" on Njkaters to try to get him to the table, accompanied by a threat to block him again and longer if he continues to revert without discussing. As shown in the diff I linked in those comments, I'm not at all sure that his reversions are totally without merit. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 18:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You probably noticed already, but I fully protected the page for a week and left a section to initiate discussion on the talk page, as well as left messages to Truthsayer2012 and Njkaters. If you feel there's any more you can add at any of those locations feel free to do so. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks, will do. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 20:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to you and TransporterMan for your assistance in this matter. As requested, I have posted more support for my position to the Boom! Studios talk page, but still haven't received a response from Njkaters. I would kindly ask that you keep an eye on the page once the protection has expired, as I fully expect the vandalism to continue. Truthsayer2012 (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

Talkback II

Hello, Ks0stm. You have new messages at David Levy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—David Levy 02:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

Log problems

Hi, I had a look at your question on the reference desk. I wasn't sure if you'd seen it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics#Logarithm_problems . Cheers, CHris 213.249.185.46 (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Aloha! Yes, I'd seen it, but I had to turn the assignment in and I'm waiting to get it back to check against the assignment. Thank you for replying though, as your reply seems most comprehensive. It will definitely help me to see how I could improve my work, especially when I get the graded copy back. Again, thanks. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 17:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Boom! Studios

Re Talk:Boom!_Studios#Page_protected_until_March_8, Njkaters' first edit after the protection expired was to revert the references to Andrew Cosby either out of the article or to diminish them in violation of your instructions to discuss before reverting. Just FYI. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

And he's EW'ing: diff — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 20:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I was just heading to take care of that about the time you messaged me. I have blocked him 24 hours; hopefully that will do better at getting him to discuss than page protection did. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Thanks for the prompt action. Would it be inappropriate for me to revert his most recent reversion with a message saying, "Edit summaries do not substitute for talk page discussion."? I'm not sure he'll even realize he's blocked unless he has something to try to revert. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 20:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
That ball isn't really in my court, so to speak. Just make sure you don't get sucked into participating in the edit war (see WP:AVOIDEDITWAR). Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's my concern. This is the classic problem of an editor who won't discuss and will only revert. I've not seen any sign that he even reads talk pages, much less posts to them. The article is such a dog's dinner that I hate to file an RFC on this and the other editor, though he's EW'ed as well, has at least tried by going to WP:DRN and posting to the talk page to get discussion started but is also such a newcomer that he doesn't see any other option but EW'ing when the other editor won't discuss and all forms of DR (3O, DRN, MedCab, and MedCom) require talk page discussion before they'll do anything (which is how I got involved, as a mediator/clerk at DRN). RFC's the only other option. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 20:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
See, I don't know...an RfC through the talk page might very well be the best option to get the content dispute resolved, and perhaps we should consider an WP:RFC/U on Njkaters if he continues this disruptive activity after his block expires (although I have no clue how feasible of an option that is given I've only had very minor involvement at any user RfCs). Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

@Ks0stm: Just wanted to thank you for you assistance in maintaining the integrity of the Boom! Studios page. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. Truthsayer2012 (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

NWS discussion question

I saw you asked a question about the NWS discussion a few days ago on the Science Reference Desk, and wasn't sure if your question was answered, so I thought I'd offer up my own explanation:

Grammar can fall by the wayside when you are tasked with scientifically describing weather events in detail every day; this is a pretty good example, as at least one word is missing or in the wrong place. I'm unsure of exactly what part you're unsure of, so I'll explain as best I can. I believe what they are saying is that the left-front quadrant of a jet streak will induce upward motion near the Oklahoma border. This is dynamic forcing via positive vorticity advection, one of myriad ways to get vertical motion in the atmosphere; the most common one is via instability caused by vertical potential temperature gradients, which would be what a "thermal vertical circulation" is. Let me know if you're still confused, I love answering questions! -RunningOnBrains(talk) 02:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

Question

In 2010 I created a user subpage to send out a message to all Members of Wikiproject Oklahoma using {{tmbox | image=[[Image:Oklahoma project logo.png|50px]]| text = This has been sent to you requesting that you respond to whether your not you are an active member of [[WP:OK]] Please respond [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Oklahoma/Members list|Here.]] By following the instructions there.}} to do it. Now two years later I need to be able to use the page without it showing up in 60 some odd user talk pages. I figure I could just go removed the link from all the pages but then I thought that there has to be a better way to do this. Any thoughts of how I should do this, I could uses an Admins view of this.--Dcheagle 17:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not sure, to be honest. You might want to ask at WP:HD; they'd probably come up with something better than I could. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok Just thought id ask thank you.--Dcheagle 04:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 March newsletter

We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! Conradh na Gaeilge 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 Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's Scotland 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.

Congratulations to Vanuatu Matthewedwards (submissions), whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to Florida 12george1 (submissions), who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Wikipedia:Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from Wisconsin Miyagawa (submissions) show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

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) 23:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your help semi-protecting those pages!Blevintron (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

A completely random Question

Are you in any way involved in the production of How I Met Your Mother? I have a strong sneaking suspicion you are.—cyberpower ChatOnline 21:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Haha if I am I'm not aware of it...I never even watch the show (much preferring The Big Bang Theory, Criminal Minds, Person of Interest (TV series), The Mentalist, etc myself). Unless there's some part of How I Met Your Mother based around a meteorology student at the University of Oklahoma that I'm not aware of I don't see how I could be involved. (For what it's worth, all of the userboxes on my user page are true.) Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh. It's because I saw your name in the ending credits of that show.—cyberpower ChatOnline 22:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Both my first and last names are within the 1000 most common in the United States, and I know of at least a couple people who show up in a Google search for it that aren't me. Now if you see Ks0stm anywhere, that's almost certainly me. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Haha alright. I'll remember that. Just thought I'd ask.—cyberpower ChatOnline 23:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

Careless action

Regarding your recent action on Insight Venture Partners:

Please revert articles to versions prior to escalation of vandalism before applying Protect or Semi Protect. Your recent action of applying Semi Protect to Insight Venture Partners left the information in its vandalized state. Please revert it back to the state as on 1 February 2012‎ which presented the correct information about this company. The current information is invalid and defamatory. If no action is taken within a reasonable timeframe, the matter will be escalated appropriately.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.203.89 (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, so I did. I didn't notice that. Well, I undid the revision that reintroduced the vandalism so it should be fine now, but feel free to let me know if I've missed something. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Photos for tornado articles

I am just now noticing that you are an undergrad at OU. Any chance that you've been out storm chasing a time or two, or plan to in the future? In my opinion, Wikipedia is really lacking in good photos of tornadoes and other severe-storm phenomena. In writing the Tornado article, I was limited to public domain tornadoes, which are, in my opinion, quite pathetic in terms of quality and "wow" factor. In addition, we don't have ANY tornado videos, and I doubt we could rely on the National Weather Service uploading any of those in the public domain. I've been chasing seven times now and have had just about the worst luck one could imagine, but I still hold on to hope that I could get a really nice shot (if not for the Tornado article, then maybe for an outbreak article). I was wondering if you'd be onboard with trying to get good pictures and videos uploaded under a free license. I don't imagine that it would be easy, but heck, if we're going out to see tornadoes, might as well improve the Wiki as well. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 00:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well the answer is a bit more complicated than it would seem. Yes, I could possibly get pictures, but it would be made difficult by the fact that my parents have an immense fear of me driving their vehicle into hail (and thus are anti-storm chasing). Because of this and the fact that my house is in between two hills about the best I've ever been able to do is storm damage pictures, as any storm cloud pictures I could take have to be practically on top of my location before they would make a good picture (hence no pictures of the storm from Saturday). I've actually wondered whether we could do better by asking the NWS to upload more and better images to their websites, but I can also see how this could shoot us in the foot if it makes them realize that we can freely use any images they upload without expressly stating copyright. I can try to get more images in the future from down in Oklahoma, but I can't guarantee anything amazing. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 17:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

You've got mail

Hello, Ks0stm. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bmusician 13:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

Warn armbrust

He started it 2 to tango why only have a go at me. Muppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.184.47 (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Question II

Hello. I would like to know how far an editor has to go before they receive a block. The 2012 World Snooker Championship is an ongoing event and therefore needs to be edited in the next three days many times. Surely the solution is to stop the people engaging in the edit war and letting the countless editors who want to contribute properly do that? Spc 21 (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I made a report at the edit warring noticeboard about the issue for outside input. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 23:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Obviously matches will be played tomorrow and as it's the biggest tournament of the season many people will look to wiki for results etc. And also many editors will want to contribute to the page in the right way, as has been seen in the past few days. I don't really get why we should not be allowed to edit the page because of the actions of two people. Spc 21 (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I have blocked both of the main combatants in this article; might you consider unlocking it? Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Unprotected Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks re Denver Nuggets

Thanks for adding protection to the Denver Nuggets article. Even though the IP doing the blanking had been blocked I think that this will also be of help. The protection goes a few days beyond the expiration of their block so if they come back they won't be able to do their damage and maybe they will get discouraged and go away. Probably some kid in Boulder CO messing around but who knows. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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 Conradh na Gaeilge 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 Scotland Casliber (submissions) was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's New York City 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 both Vanuatu Matthewedwards (submissions) and United Kingdom Grandiose (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, England 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, Michigan Dana Boomer (submissions) earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by Bavaria Stone (submissions) to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. United Kingdom 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 United Kingdom Jarry1250 (submissions) and Bavaria 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) 23:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

ITN Collodictyon

Can you judge consensus here? Bzweebl (talk) 03:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get to this last night; I finished up posting The Scream to ITN and was so exhausted I went to bed before I looked into this. I'm afraid by the time I got around to it today (about 10 minutes ago) there seems to have started a discussion about it not being ready yet, so that will need to be resolved first (and quickly, seeing as it would now be the third to last item on the template). Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Ira Einhorn article

Thank you for blocking that troublesome user. Could you be a dear and also revert their last edit? I think I'm at about 3 reverts myself so I cannot do it. There's not that many users who have that page on their watchlist it seems, so it has only been me and another user reverting their edits (which violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP). This user might have access to other IPs, so semi-protection may be needed.

If you check the history of the page, this IP editor has been active on that page since July 2011. All of their edits to that page consist of removing information relating to his environmental activism, and adding in highly pov edits. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Normally I wouldn't since I got involved on the administrative side but that edit was blatantly problematic enough that I felt it was warranted. I'll also add the page to my watchlist to see if they come back. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

Upcoming Wikimedia events in Missouri and Kansas!

You're invited to 3 exciting events Wikipedians are planning in your region this June—a tour and meetup at the National Archives in Kansas City, and Wiknics in Wichita and St. Louis:

Kansas City
Saturday, June 16, starting at 9 a.m. — National Archives in Kansas City
  • This full-day event will include a tour of the facility; presentations from National Archives Wikipedian-in-Residence, Dominic McDevitt-Parks, and Exhibit Specialist, Dee Harris; and time in the research room to work on projects. The focus of the projects will be scanning, writing articles, transcribing, or categorizing images on Commons.

    Wikipedians from St. Louis and elsewhere in the region are encouraged to make a day-trip of it and come to Kansas City for this special opportunity!

And two local editions of the Great American Wiknic, the "picnic anyone can edit." Come meet (and geek out with, if you want) your local Wikipedians in a laid-back atmosphere:

Wichita
Saturday, June 23, starting at 1 p.m. — Central Riverside Park
  • Join the 1st annual Wichita Wiknic: The Sunflower State blooms Free Knowledge!
St. Louis
Saturday, June 23, starting at 11 a.m. — Forest Park Visitors' Center
  • Join the 2nd annual St Louis Wiknic: The Gateway to the West is now The Gateway to the Wiki!

Message delivered by Dominic·t 19:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

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 Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader, Conradh na Gaeilge 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. Wisconsin 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 Scotland 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, New York City 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) 23:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ks0stm/Archive_7&oldid=1252476623"