User talk:KumiokoCleanStart/Archive 10

External audio
External audio
	Jose Feliciano's "Feliz Navidad "

This is an archive of past discussions about User:KumiokoCleanStart. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Nomination as a United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month candidate

Greetings, as someone who has signed up to be a member of the United States Wikipedians' collaboration of the Month, I wanted to let you know that several articles have been nominated to be a future Collaboration of the Month article. All editors interested in voting for or improving these article are encouraged to participate. You can cast your vote here. --Kumioko (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

US collaboration

Thanks for keeping the US collaboration going. :) I'm wondering if Template:USCOTWnom template should be substituted? I don't know those templates well enough but would like to vote. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

PS - Wikipedia talk:Meetup/DC 27 --Aude (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome and I'm glad someone noticed. It doesn't seem to get much action so I'm gonna try and push it out some more. I think your right about the subst thing but I admit I'm not 100% sure either. I'll find out and get that fixed if needed. Thanks for the update in the Meetup. I might try and make it to the one next Sat but January will be tough. --Kumioko (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

And you're welcome for the thank you at my talk. Jesanj (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kumioko, I don't know how to add my votes to the templates, but if I'd like to nominate the Star-Spangled Banner one, plus the article about the great depression in the US, could u please add my name there, thanks. Btw I already worked on the article Hope Diamond and I think it's in pretty good shape, getting good readership, with lots of references too.--Tomwsulcer (talk)

No problem, Ill add your name. Thanks for the work on the Hope diamond article. --Kumioko (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 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.

--Kumioko (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. You have new messages at Alexf's talk page.
Message added 02:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alexf^(talk) 02:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

indianapolis task force

Hey Kumioko! I notice the USA template has a command to display WikiProject Indiana, but it doesn't display the Indianapolis task force. How would one get the task force to display in the USA template? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, the template should have the Indianapolis task force as well. If you use|Indianapolis= it should generate that. If you take a look at Talk:Indianapolis you can see what it looks like. I did just check something though and that is the parameters for all the supported projects must start in uppercase. I could add some alias's to the template to account for many of these though and will look at doing that in the next day or so. --Kumioko (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! An alias would be appreciated :) WhisperToMe (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Already done along with several others. I do not have admin rights so I could only do it in the sandbox though. I have a couple of other small tweaks I need to do to the template but tomorrow I will request that the code be implemented. It may take a day or 2 for someone to get around to implementing it though. --Kumioko (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Shakinglord

This user is banned - adding things to the userpage is not needed. Calabe 1992 03:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll make sure they get removed from the list. --Kumioko (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Same for User:Spongefrog. He's retired/blocked/not here for whichever of those reasons you prefer. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll scrub the list and see who is Blocked and clean up the list. --Kumioko (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Removing collapsed parameter

Is there any particular reason why your cleaning often removes the |collapsed=yes parameter from the project banner shell? When there are 3 or more projects it makes sense to collapse.

On another note, I recently went over the Medal of Honor article and it's not in very good condition. I left a note on the talk page about having to start a FAR soon. Brad (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree the Medal of Honor article is in pretty humble condition at the moment. I'm totally swamped at the moment but I'm trying to do some things to clear off my plate a bit and get back to doing some article improvements. As for why I remove |collapsed=. In most cases its just not needed, the WPBannershell code should autocollapse the banners if there are more then 3 I think. I'll double check that but thats the reasoning anyway. Is it not working that way? --Kumioko (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The change you made at Talk:Douglas_MacArthur only took away the collapse. The banner shell isn't auto-collapsing. But even if the collapse isn't needed it certainly isn't hurting anything by being there. Brad (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter unsubscription request

Hi. Can you confirm for me that Anythingyouwant has been unsubscribed from notifications for the WikiProject United States newsletter? Anythingyouwant recently retired from Wikipedia and requested that his talk page be fully protected, so any future notification attempts to his talk page will probably fail anyway, but.... Thanks. — Richwales (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Its done, I also verified that this account as well as the Ferrlodge alias were moved to the inactive members list of the WikiProject Presidential elections. --Kumioko (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject Olahoma's banner

Hi I have no idea whether you remember me or not. I done the work to incorporate the WP:OK andWP:OU. And know that that is done some six hundred pages need to have Template:WikiProject University of Oklahoma replaced with Template:WikiProject Oklahoma and I have no idea how to go about doing that. I figured I might get a bot to do it but I don't know how to go about having that done. And im not going to do it by hand cause that would take a lot of time that I dont have right now. Any help that you could give me would be great.--Dcheagle 20:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, I think a bot would be a good idea. Thats a lot of pages. I will take a look later and see if I can help. --Kumioko (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks let me now.--Dcheagle 03:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know I am in the final stages of getting a bot approved to do this type of change so once thats done I should be able to knock this out pretty quickly. --Kumioko (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That's great, You've been a big help with all of this.--Dcheagle 01:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Kumi-Taskbot

I was wondering if your Bot has been through WP:BRFA or not. You are not supposed to run a bot without going through that process first and I don't see any evidence your bot is approved. GB fan 14:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, Just got approved yesterday. Is it doing something wrong? Here's a link. --Kumioko (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No it is not doing anything wrong. I guess I was looking at something wrong. It was brought up at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed‎ and I was looking at the contributions page and thought they were supposed to be marked with a b. Since then I have looked at other bots and theirs aren't marked that way either. GB fan 15:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that's interesting. I didn't realize it would show up on the grid like that. How many edits will it take before it drops off. Its done over 500 now. --Kumioko (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure, haven't dealt with bots much. GB fan 16:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I see your bot marching through various U.S. states, merging talk pages. Have you obtained specific approvals of the corresponding state WikiProjects? I am member of WikiProject New York and WikiProject Connecticut, and will not be inclined to agree that those wikiprojects should accept merger, FYI. No offense intended, but i want to avoid rather than encourage conflict. --do ncr am 02:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem Connecticut and New York are not included. If you take a look at the list of WikiProject Supported on the WikiProject United States Project page youll see which ones are being done. --Kumioko (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kumioko, shouldn't the bot handle instead of create redundancy like this one? Quite a few pages will end up with two United States banners, which would make a hunt for those duplicates necessary. Hekerui (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Your absolutely right, I have built about 25 rules to catch them but I guess I need to add a few more. Unfortunately its impossible to anticipate every variation of a banner but I have been adding them as they are found either by myself or others like you and reported to me. I already added logic to fix this one but I guess it hasn't caught up yet. Over the next couple weeks I hope to have fixed this problem. --Kumioko (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

<font=3> Wishing you a
"Feliz Navidad and a Prospero Año Nuevo"
(Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year)
Tony the Marine (talk)

Thank you very much Tony. Same to you. --Kumioko (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

tfm message box

If you add the {{tfm}} template to {{Portal box}} and use the |type=sidebar option then it will appear as:

So shouldn't be too intrusive. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks will do. Do I need to then add it to the TFD discussion page as well or does it automatically get added when the TFM tempalte is added? --Kumioko (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Your bot and USRD articles

In this edit, your bot blanked the |needs-map= parameter, which has helped to fill up Category:U.S. Roads project articles without needs-map. Can you fix this? Imzadi 1979 → 01:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but just out of curiousity why do you require marking with a no to say it doesn't need a map? Wouldn't it be better to do it by exception? --Kumioko (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the way it's always been. If it isn't set, it flags the banner to be checked. The three options are "yes", "no" or "na", and if it isn't set, we know to check the article for that, and possibly reassessment/assessment. Imzadi 1979 → 01:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm working on a fix for that now. I just need to test it out and make sure it works but it should be done in a few. Please let me know if you notice anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Will you be fixing the other 33 articles' banners your bot incorrectly modified? Imzadi 1979 → 03:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'll fix those now. I temporarily disabled the rule until I can get a better workaround done. --Kumioko (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There all fixed as you requested. One thing I noticed though. I think a couple of them should have been there because they were marked class=future. --Kumioko (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Future-Class wouldn't affect the necessity, presence, or lack thereof of a map. Imzadi 1979 → 04:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed Portal box merger nomination

Fixed .. Saw you were trying to add something to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#December 22.Moxy (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Great thanks, I was wondering if I did that right. --Kumioko (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Bot edits for collapsed=yes

When removing collapsed=yes from WikiProjectBannerShell, don't remove both |'s (see [1], [2] & [3] ) for the issue. I've fixed those. Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Also a few here with a $2 that need fixing. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for letting me know. I stopped the bot and I have fixed both those 2 errors. I will go back now and fix those so they shoudl be donen in the next few minutes. Please let me know if you notice anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Still happening, unfortunately. Hekerui (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I added another catch for that. As I continue to tag and readjust I will fix these as the bot scans back through or as they are brought to my attention as you have done. The one you mention above is fixed. --Kumioko (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Pinkstrawberry02™^talkis wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Pinkstrawberry02™^talk 16:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Kumioko (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Thank you very much. Merry Christmas to you as well. --Kumioko (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Conversion of template

Could I ask that when converting US State templates to the United States template not to add image-need=yes if the page already has a reqphoto or Image requested template. In most cases this only introduces problems, such as duplicating to a parent category when it is already in a more detailed one or moving a person request into a location request. Also I have found an error or two, for example Kinter K. Koontz House. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is when I am converting the templates I have no way of knowing if the main page has a photo and even if it does, in many cases, people are requesting photos of something specific that can't be derived without looking at the article and reviewing it. I am just copying over what is already in the template. With that said. At a later stage I would like to go through the articles and do some things like adding or removing needs photo, infobox, etc if certain criteria are met. I'm just not quite sure what those criteria are yet that can be defined using a bot. Some can and some can't. --Kumioko (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, a good example is actually the article you provided above. Yes the article has an image but I would argue that a more specific image is needed than an image of the state with a dot indicating the general location of the building. --Kumioko (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Article Assessment

I noticed that you previously provided an importance scale assessment for the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City article, and I was wondering if you could assist me in determining an appropriate quality scale assessment for that article. I tried submitting an assessment request through WikiProject Missouri, but have thus far not gotten a response from any other WikiProject member. Even if you are not a WikiProject Missouri member, any assistance you could provide in getting the article assessed through one of the other WikiProjects which it has been added to would be most appreciated. --TommyBoy (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for assessing the article. As a result of your assistance, I have withdrawn the assessment request I submitted to WikiProject Missouri. --TommyBoy (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome. --Kumioko (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Your bot is awesome! Thanks for the article cleanup it has done to talk page wikiproject templates for Seattle area articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results
Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content
Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars
Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein
Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

My bot doesn't use AWB

My bot doesn't use AWB, so why are you adding AWB=yes here? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. It is on the list of AWB approved bots here. --Kumioko (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

National Archives ExtravaSCANza

You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success!

This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions¹ as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

¹ Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

Reply

Hello. You have a new message at GoingBatty's talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

WPNC to WPUS - NC done

Just wanted to let you know that the project tag templates for the WikiProject North Carolina have now all been corrected to show WP US / NC. I was able to get through it a lot faster than I thought using AWB. Thought it would take me forever. :) Anyway, I'm going to get back to my regular editing after I post a message about it on the WPNC talk page. Let me know if there is any more help you need. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know and thank you for the help. Once I'm done with the tagging for the other projects (which should be in the next day or 2) I am going to start tagging some additional articles that weren't in the projects scope yet. If you see any categories or other groupings for North Carolina that you think should be included please let me know. I will try and do the North Carolina list in the next couple days. --Kumioko (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: AWB

Perhaps I've not understood, but wouldn't it be easier to preparse the article list, convert to talk pages, and then batch perform the edit in question? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 20:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Mmm, it still seems easier to me to prepare lists of articles needing various edits. However, if you're interested in writing an AWB plugin, you can try asking User:Reedy; he'll probably be able to give you far more insightful comments than I can about how easy it is to do. (It may turn out to be easier to locally fork AWB for this purpose, so perhaps consider that as well.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 21:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Right we don't have any tool in awb that obtains info from an article and makes changes to its talk page. This is something I also had in mind at some point. I concluded that creating list of pages using preparse mode and skip conditions was easier and faster than creating a plugin. For example perform a dry run with skip if doesn't contain "Infobox" then save only the list of the skipped articles from the logs (we have a feature for that) and then convert these pages to talk pages and add the "needs-infobox=yes" to your WikiProject. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks that's what I was afraid of. I thought there were a couple bots doing this type of action for assessments (looking for stubs and if it was a redirect) but maybe not. I just hate scanning 200, 000 articles (I usually do it by class starting with the FA and working down) looking for the problem before I can do any edits and I hate having to make multiple recurring similar edits with different parameters but if that's how it has to be done so be it. I guess I can just do it as one big list and then factor out duplicates so that I can do multiple things at once...at least for some things anyway. Thanks to you both. --Kumioko (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Oklahoma Barnstar

		The Oklahoma Barnstar
		For all the help you have provided us, I award you Wiki-project Oklahoma's highest honor--Dcheagle 09:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Kumioko (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject United States - photo request categories

Hi, you may of noticed I have made some corrections to the template. I see you have created a number of new categories that in most cases are empty or have only one or two requests. Please note the Wikipedia requested photographs categories are intended to aid people identify what photographs are needed not to classify the requests. This is a subtle but important difference. It is useful to be able to go to a state category and plot on Google map or Bing map the locations of requests when you are in the area. Having to dig down too many sub-categories is a hindrance. Yes in some cases it is worth creating a new category, particularly if there are several hundred requests in one category, but please if possible use existing categories. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Its true they are not populated yet. I only recently completed transitioning the articles from the other projects under the WPUS banner. Now I am going to be adding some missing articles to those projects and populating the parameters like needs image, infobox, map and geocoordinates. So over the next couple months those categories will start to get more articles in them. At the same time I will be working to locate the needed information (adding infoboxes, locating and adding images and maps, etc.). Its a long term projet and won't be fixed overnight but gradually they will all get fixed. Making sure they have infoboxes will be the easiest because I can create a bot task to build a basic infobox template for those that don't have it. Once thing about images though. There are going to be some cases where there just isn't an image available for the article. This will be more true of things like buildings that don't exist anymore or people who predate cameras (like some civil war Medal of Honor recipients). I need to come up with a way to mark the article as no known image or something so that we don't fill the category up with articles that will be impossible to find imaegs for. I hope this helps. --Kumioko (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not misunderstand my comments, what you are doing is very useful. Please keep the image requests even for difficult ones. There are a number of people adding photographic archives to Wikipedia and Commons and tools for matching requests to images. All I was asking is not to create too many new categories if there are existing one that will suffice.--Traveler100 (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh ok no problem. --Kumioko (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Categorization

I can't check back on that particular article without being reminded of the title, because I went through a large batch of articles yesterday, but I do recall that there was at least one case where I removed a "people from (U.S. state)" category because the body of the article failed to clarify how, if at all, the person was actually from that state in any significant way — the category itself appeared to be the sole mention of either the state or any city within it anywhere in the entire article — and just forgot to change the edit summary to reflect the fact that I was doing something different from the rest of the batch. If that explanation doesn't fit the article you had in mind, then could you remind me which article you're looking at so I can go back and verify what I did or why? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Old FRs

Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Archive_24#Several_sections_under_Feature_requests_that_could_be_archived. Proceed :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I will thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Coordinate display of USGS stubs

May I remind you about Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 44#Coordinate display of USGS stubs, if you now have time to help? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me. I'll get going on that. --Kumioko (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

OK just a couple follow-up questions about the task that are likely to come up when I submit them:

What does adding the display, inline title accomplish
Is there a discussion somewhere that indicates this is needed and desired? --Kumioko (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding "title" to the display (it's inline by default) makes the coordinates appear in the top left; indicating that they're applicable to the whole article, and not just one of many points discussed in it. These are then parsed by, among others, Google maps and OpenStreetMap (and Layar?) for their Wikipedia layers. We have almost three quarters of a million articles with title coordinates, so there's a demonstration of consensus. WP:GEO refers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks for the explaination. --Kumioko (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I submitted the request. I'm just waiting on someone to review it and give the approval. --Kumioko (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Idea: Memphis task force

What do you think of the idea of the making a Memphis area task force? I propose making it a child of the USA project since it would cover multiple states (TN, MS, and AR) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me. MS falls under WPUS already although AR and TN do not but I see no reason why not. Do you know how much interest there is in a separate task force for that area? --Kumioko (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

How would I best gauge that interest?

I know that Memphis is a fairly important area- not just with the Elvis and general music cultures, but also because it's HQ to Fedex

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Good question. You could start a discussion on a couple of the projects (TN, US, AR or MS, maybe all of them) and see who comments. If you create it you should still start discussions on those pages anyway though. In honesty I don't know how to gauge the interest. Its fine with me if you want to create a task force though I don't mean to seem like I am against it. --Kumioko (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Texas

I'm not sure whom to express this to, so here goes. Just a nagging concern.

For all intents and purposes, this project is not any kind of cohesive structure with regular contributors to the project page. I don't see anyone riding herd over this thing. No surprise there, and I think you're doing your best to keep the various projects vital. However, the main page of the Texas project needs to be updated.

I'm guessing that there might be a lot of editors out there like me, who are doing their own thing with Texas articles, not necessarily as part of any project. The one or two people on that project who were around two or three years ago, seem to have poofed away.

Open Tasks - out of date for years. It's kind of embarrassing as is. Couldn't we just wipe the slate clean on that Open Tasks box?
Participants - also out of date. But it would take someone willing to go through it. Some of those editors haven't been active on WP for years. And some of the ones who are still active with WP, their "Contributions" on their user page don't really show anything in Texas.

I'm not suggesting that you personally should take care of these items. But I am expressing the thought that project page itself loses some credibility if it's so easy to spot how out-of-date it is. It's like driving past one of those ghost towns that used to be so vital, but nobody lives there anymore. Maile66 (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

First let me say thanks for the kind words. I also agree that the project page is pretty out of date as are many of the State projects. Its no problem though, I can take a look at those 2 pages and maybe do some other improvements as well. It may take a couple days though. I agree that it might be bext to wipe the slate clean on some of those tasks and just start over with some of those categories. My priority at the moment is the projects that are under the supported list and theres a lot of work to do there. Someone may come along and revert some or all of them though. Some folks are pretty sensitive to the perception that I am trying to take over all the projects (which I am not). Please let me know if you have any other suggestions. --Kumioko (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's try this. Why don't I put a notice on the project's Talk page, and suggest someone clean up the Open Task list. For the most part, I don't think anything on that list should be there anymore. If no one does anything in, say, a week's time, then you clean it up. I'd also like to put a notice on the Talk page about the Participants list. And to take you out of the bulls eye somewhat, I'll say that I personally am going to divide the Participants list into two sections - Active, and Inactive. Some of the projects have that. I'll invite anyone active on that list to either express their opinion on the Talk page, or to help clean it up. If no takers after a week (and I doubt there will be), I'll clean it up myself. Does this sound workable to you? I'm getting good at cleaning up lists, after I did the Texas museums list.Maile66 (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That sounds great. If you keep adding notices, starting discussions and pruning the project page it should draw interest from other editors to help out as well. Thanks for letting me know and please let me know if there is anything I can do to help. --Kumioko (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, it's on the project talk page. If no one starts on that Open Task box by next week, please look at it. I'll take care of the Participants list. Let's see if it gets completely ignored (probably), or raises some feedback.Maile66 (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Great, good luck. --Kumioko (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I did some diddling with the Texas Task List , and noticed that no one but me has touched this list since 2009, which was only a link update. No serious updating has been done on this list since 2008. Perhaps a coincidence that year a Texan wasn't running for President. Whatever the reason, it's sad to see this project neglected. And maybe, in effect, dead. Maile66 (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is sad and somewhat surprising. It used to be a very active project and there are a lot of editors in TX. I'm glad you are working on it though and please let me know if there is anything I can do to help. As a side note there are quite a few texas related projects that are also inactive or at best semi active and it might be beneficial to pull them under the Texas project. --Kumioko (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the more layers one lifts....see Texan Collaboration Notice, allegedly the collaboration of the month. It's had one listing only, and it was listed June 2005. The Portal:Texas is really sad. I just updated "Things You Can Do" list on there, which should be - but isn't - linked to the Texas Task List template. The Texas project is a bit of a mess.I'm guessing that at one point there was a talented and dedicated group who put this together, and then just drifted away. And when you think of the wasted energy on edit (ego) wars, when team work is really needed in so many areas. Maile66 (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have seen similar problems with many of the projects which is partly why I resurrected WPUnited States, restarted the US Collaboration and Notice board and the various other things I've been hacking away at. It will take a little time but you can make a difference by cleaning it up. If you send a message to the members of the various Texas related projects and ask them to pitch in you may find others that want to fix it up but are deterred by the overwhelmingness of it. --Kumioko (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind eyeballing Here. I'd like to post this as you suggested on all the related projects. However, I think maybe you have experience of doing a tiptoe through the mine field, so I'd like you to see if anything stands out as threatening to other editors. Also, is there something else I should mention? Maile66 (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope not threateing at all that looks very good, great job. --Kumioko (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Bot run request

Hello again, slightly different topic this time. I see you have a bot that is approved to replace WikiProject templates. When you can find time would you be willing to do a run? I would like to have talk pages with {{WikiProject GeorgiaUS}} replaced with Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state). The redirect appears to be causing categories not to be updated correctly. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#Update of category.. thanks --Traveler100 (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem, This is exactly the reason I absolutely hate template redirects and think they should be avoided. Problems of this type (and worse) are shockingly common and frequently missed. Let me finish the one I am working on (about 700 articles to go) and then I'll start this one. Because some editors don't like cleaning up redirects I am going to start with the ones who have a more significant problem and then see where that gets us. --Kumioko (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have also adjusted my code to catch that redirect as its going through the current list (there are several Georgia related articles in it). --Kumioko (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks --Traveler100 (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't the redirect that caused the problem. The reason it looked like the redirect was the problem is that the pages that had the redirect on the page still have just never refreshed after the template had been moved. You were still looking at pre-move version of the page. The minute anyone would have edited or even just read the page in any way shape or form it would have updated and fixed itself. Usually the job queue takes care of this on its own but occasionally it doesn't. The error was caused by the move itself not the redirect. As for cleaning up redirects well you aren't supposed to do it which is why people don't do it. There is specifically a guideline saying don't "fix" redirects. That being said if you are already doing an edit to the page most people have no problem with the change being made at that point. -DJSasso (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I still don't completely agree with the Template redirects don't cause problems argument but thank you very much for fixing this. --Kumioko (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries, was mostly commenting for Travellers benefit incase he sees this in any other areas. Didn't think he would be watching the thread you opened. -DJSasso (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope your probably right. Thanks again. --Kumioko (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi Kumioko,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

{{Project header}} to {{WikiProject status}}

I see your replacing the project templates great job! I have a question - at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Creating a WikiProject and there boilerplate template {{WikiProject}} use {{Project header}}. Should we /can we change {{Project header}} to {{WikiProject status}} on theses pages? {{WikiProject status}} function in the same manner as {{Project header}} but has more functionality right?.Moxy (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and yes good catch by all means those need to be replaced also. Just hadn't gotten that far yet. Feel free. --Kumioko (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Done..pls take a look make sure its right.Moxy (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks fine. I went ahead and updated the page to use WikiProject Birds instead of tulips to get rid of all the red links. IMO its kind of a bad example if its been deleted. --Kumioko (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that {{WikiProject status}} is going on both projects and task forces. I think this may confuse some people, especially new editors. Would it be better to have a separate banner for task focus, I wonder? Klein zach 03:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree it may be somewhat confuses. I am really just replacing the old template with the new one but there is a tasforce=yes parameter that can be set for the task forces that changes the verbiage of the banner. So does the parent=yes parameter. --Kumioko (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Aren't these parameters only for active collaborations? Klein zach 04:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they have to be. If its a taskforce or if a project is a parent it doesn't really matter if its inactive, defunct or semi-active. Its still a taskforce and the parent project is still the parent. --Kumioko (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have an example? That might make this clearer. No hurry, of course. Klein zach 04:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure take a look at the wording difference in Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Argentine cinema task force. --Kumioko (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it still refers to it (and lists it) as a project, not a task force. That's exactly the point I was making. Of course I appreciate you are working on a different problem right now. Klein zach 04:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all. I appreciate the input. How do you think we should word it or display it as a taskforce? --Kumioko (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess with a new template called {{Taskforce status}}. (OT but my edit window signature button has disappeared! Is everybody else experiencing the same thing?) Klein zach 05:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Although we certainly could I don't know if we need to create a whole seperate template for taskforces. But I do agree that we can clarify the wording to make it more identifyable. The only problem may be when its a joint taskforce of multiple projects. --Kumioko (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

We should give an example at {{WikiProject status}} on the customizes parameters. Like with Kumioko's USA project main page banner. Example ?= {{WikiProject status|project-type=topic|image=[[File:WP Canada Logo-.svg|80px]]|margin=0px|topic=[[Canada]]|WP:CA|WP:CANADA|portal=Canada}}.Moxy (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Your right. --Kumioko (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

CfD Discussion

A CfD which you have been previously involved in has been proposed again at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_12#Category:National_Public_Radio. You are invited to participate in the current discussion. Frank | talk 01:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Removing subst using AWB

Hi. I noticed that some of your recent AWB edits include the replacement {{subst: → {{ (example diff). I spot-checked several of them, and all were within nowiki tags, meant for a user to copy and paste. Thinking it was an AWB issue, I asked at WT:AutoWikiBrowser#Removing subst. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll double check my code and watch for that. --Kumioko (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

TB

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

Portal vs Portal box and the proposed merger

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

Articles for Creation Appeal

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently the are 1031 submissions waiting to be reviewed.

Do you have what it takes?

Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
Are you autoconfirmed?
Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

Your recent comments at the coordinates project

WP:USRD did not suggest that the coordinates project be shut down. That idea was proposed by Tagishsimon (talk · contribs).
WP:HWY, WP:USRD's parent project, is hosting a RfC to seek input on solving the six-month-old debate on coordinates in road articles.
Tagishsimon canvassed about 100 editors using the "Proposal to shut down WP Geographic Coordinates & ban coordinates on wikipedia articles" heading above a link to that discussion.
The RfC has nothing to do with coordinates in non-road articles.
The RfC was neutrally announced at the coordinated project when it was opened; it was also listed on WP:CENT.

I know that we haven't always seen eye to eye, but please check your facts before you make false assertions about one wikiproject's members on the discussion page of another wikiproject. Imzadi 1979 → 15:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not get my facts mixed up its obvious according to the RFC. The whole thing was started and is IMO being dominated by, members of the USRoads project. I think generally the USRoads project does a lot of good things, and I have supported it in a number of occassions. I do however think that they sometimes try and force their opinions on others and the suggestion by someone to shut down a WikiProject because they didn't comment on an RFC of a different project is completely absurd. Besides that a motion of this magnitude should be solicited in a more public venue like the Village pump (if it hasn't already) not buried in a rarely reviewed WikiProject that few outside the project itself will see, ensuring that the results are positively skewed in favor of the projects members desires. --Kumioko (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you did get your facts mixed up, because your comments implied that USRD is trying to get another wikiproject shut down and pull coordinate data from every article. Tagishsimon is the one that is implying that the RfC would remove coordinates from other articles.

The short history is as follows: about six months ago, Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) made an edit to MOS:RJL that stated that coordinates had to use {{coord}}. In the past, we've had a laissez-faire approach to coordinates in highway articles because there isn't a satisfactory solution. For the most part, UKRD has used them, and USRD/CRWP have not. The discussion turned into a "you must add them" vs. "no we won't because of the issues" debate and stalled out. Two FACs were impacted last month, leading to the need for an RfC to settle the situation.

Now, roads aren't points, they're lines. To pick a single point for the top right corner of the article as representative of a highway has many issues. In the case of the two FACs (which passed without coordinates), M-185 (Michigan highway) is a loop so it doesn't have any endpoints, and the 300 miles total for U.S. Route 2 in Michigan exist in two segments. The best solution that's come up so far (Proposal 9) would be to use a shapefile instead of a single point, allowing us to link to a full line on the external mapping sites instead of a single point. There's a new geotagging function being developed for MediaWiki 1.19 that might include that as well, better integrating our links between Wikipedia and OpenStreetMap.

As for the RfC, Floydian (talk · contribs) is a Canadian, and not a member of USRD. Of the 18 editors supporting his proposal, 11 are not USRD members. Imzadi 1979 → 15:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking over this discussion, and I'm kind of puzzled, since it appears somewhat like you're both right. Sheesh. Please don't ask me to explain, but I was wondering what your views about the Best Road Movie -- ever -- were. My guess is: Vanishing Point (1971 film). Ever seen that? Sorry, people, didn't want to interrupt your argument here. Bye for now.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Highway movie? Several of us are partial to Cars (film) since parts of it actually fit with roadgeek-y interests. (I think someone wanted to, or actually did, create Interstate 40 Business (Radiator Springs) at one time. Imzadi 1979 → 16:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I was actually thinking that too although The Cannonball Run is pretty good too. --Kumioko (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please point out where anyone said "you must add them". Your conflation of the use of title coordinates and the cases of circular or interrupted roads is a red herring; both types of roads could have coordinates in articles about them without title coordinates. Incidentally, this is the edit referred to. Note my use of the word "if". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

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

January 2012 USCOTM - The Star-Spangled Banner

Hello, KumiokoCleanStart/Archive 10! The Star-Spangled Banner has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month article for January 2012 and we are looking for editors to help improve the article. You were identified as an editor or WikiProject with an interest in the article and we thought you might be interested in helping out. Thanks!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Yes thier is. Are thier any openings in animal pages? ( maybe horses?) I wont be able to reply for a while. I may be able to reply tonight though. if not tomorow. --Cheyenne (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC) Thanx for helping me! ur a life saver! --Cheyenne (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC) so that's what i was doin wrong! thanx again! :)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content
Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books
Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator
Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

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 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Updated WikiProject Texas

Comatose, if not outright dead. And the project page is completely useless. I don't have a solution, but I recognize the situation as is.

No response whatsoever to what I posted. Updated Tasks and the Participants list.

The participants list contained users who hadn't been around WP in 6 or 7 years. I completely deleted multiple sock puppet accounts, some editors who got blocked indefinitely years ago, and a few red-link editors whose user pages had been deleted a long time ago. Some names on the Active participants list I recognize for work on non-Texas articles. Names I associate with Texas articles are not part of that list. One editor I can think of has put in a great deal of time creating articles on Texas schools, but has not chosen to be on that list.

Editors are working on Texas articles, but not through the project page The project page does not serve as a filter or assistance page in any aspect. Whatever group was there has been gone for a long time. I'm not even sure what purpose that project page serves, except as a type of facade for WP efforts in Texas.

Personally, I find Category pages on both WP and Commons a lot more informative to me personally. Maile66 (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thats unfortunate but I'm at least glad you identified it as such. How can I help? --Kumioko (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Beats me. I think you've already been trying your best. As a project, the Texas one is deceased. Maile66 (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

So I guess that gives us a couple options. We can try and rebuild it and kick start the project. As with when I restarted the WPUS project, most likely if you build it they will come, it may take a while and would require quite a lot of effort on someones part such as yourself but traffic will start to pick up if you stick to it. Another option would be to add it to the supported projects list of WPUS with some of the other states. We would still need to clean up and rebuild the main page but this will give all the options available currently through the WPUS template as well as all the bots. It will also require a bit less effort on your and others parts because many of the bots and things have already been approved and setup. The newsletter, etc. Then if the project starts to become self sufficient again at some point in the future it can break away again. I would recommend giving it a few months at least but thats an option.

Whichever option you choose will require at least 3 things:

Cleanup the project and start trying to get people discussing stuff on the project again.
Tag and assess related articles. If people start seeing tags and assessments being done to articles it will generate interest
Recruit additional editors interested in TX. Its a huge state with a lot of editors so there should be plenty of folks out there.

I will help anyay I can just let me know what you want me to do. Since you seem to be the one interested in getting that project back going again I'll follow your lead on it just let me know how I can help. I can do a lot of things with my bot if need be I just need to submit for the approval. --Kumioko (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Tagging Counter productive. Please don't. As far as anything I've seen, tags have turned WP into a gigantic trash dump. I just see tags everywhere that have been there for years with no improvement in the article. It's (IMO) a real unsightly discredit to the value of WP. And there's at least one Admin out there whose whole purpose in life for the last decade is to just tag hop all over WP. That one never contributes anything to WP except the tags. So, let's not tag.
Assessing related articles. Be my guest. I've done hundreds already. I don't see what it results in.
Encourage on the Talk Page - been trying that one for a year or so, with no result.
Recruit additional Tx editors. You have some ideas of how to do that?
Add to WPUS - good idea. Altho, I think I already cleaned up the main page. Maybe you see things that need to be done, but I think it got cleaned. Unless we completely delete the Inacitve editors - I'm not sure the Inactive list serves a purpose.
Do my own thing. This is kind of where I am. One of the advantages of nobody being interested in the project, is no edit wars with what I create. So, in that respect, I've been happy.
Need a strong leader for the project. Here's the main thing, I believe. Gotta be a chief. And it would not be me. But I do believe there needs to be something in the way of Admins who are purposed towards boosting the Texas project. And while there are some Admins in Texas, they, too, are out there doing their own thing. Being an Admin in not a WP-set-in-stone requirement of being a leader.
Put a project obit in the Signpost. I'm only half tongue-in-cheek about that. Maile66 (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I should have clarified tagging. What I meant was adding the WPTX banner to the talk page of the articles. Although the project has a fair number of articles in its scope its about 1/3rd of what I think it should be. Tx is a huge state with a lot of history and people. Lots of related content. I just done a little preliminary check and without trying I got another 5900+ articles in less than ten minutes. This includes some images, portal pages, categories, templates and articles that relate to Texas.

On the recuiting thing, just keep pinging the ones who are active in Tx stuff about the goings on of the project.

Just to clarify, adding Texas to the WPUS supported projects list would entail adding TX to the WPUS banner and replacing the WPTX banner with WPUS/TX like was done with Arizona, Idaho, Colorado, etc. If this is done I would like to start a discussion on the project page for a couple weeks. It might help to "invigorate" interest. My bot could move through the list pretty quickly once the decision has been made to go forward or not. Got a couple other projects in the Hopper at the Moment too, Mass, UNC and a couple others.

Kinda Funny on the last point but it might work. Not sure how many people read the Signpost though.

If it makes you feel better, I have a bot, over 330, 000 edits, created about 1000 articles and I'm not an admin either but I sure make a lot of work for some of them. :-) --Kumioko (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! On the talk page. Yeah, that's fine. Let's do it. Start a dialogue on the Project page (WPUS or Tx?) about this, and I'll join in. This is probably the most hopeful option at the moment. Are we standardizing state projects under WPUS? I certainly like the tabbed part of the WPUS main page. It makes it look clean and orderly.
Do you ever watch The Simpsons? There's that kid Nelson Muntz who stands on the sidelines, points his finger, and yells "Haw! Haw" at people - the "you made a mistake" tagging on WP is WP's version of Nelson Muntz.
My hat's off to you, 1,000 articles. I think I've created a couple of hundred, plus - mostly on lesser-known people and places that others might not have even been aware of. No bots. And I try to make the articles as tight as possible so no one else will have to clean up after me. Maile66 (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok I'll start something in a little while. Most of the articles I created or got featured related to Medal of Honor recipients, some military operations and a few misc. ones here and there. --Kumioko (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you feel about adding tabs to the WPTexas page similar to WPUS. It think it makes it easier to find things but its up to you. --Kumioko (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(lurker comment) i would suggest some meet-ups; enter the NRHP photo contest, more visability; meeting with some campus ambassadors. as to the leader thing, maile66 you may already be it. you never know when some follower will come along. teams have a life cycle, they can be built again and again. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 20:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You are correct on every comment. Lurk away, Positive input is always needed. --Kumioko (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

WP Tx notice

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Texas#Redesign of WikiProject Texas main page

FYI Maile66 (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Tabbing in Texas

We are not alone in the cosmos, as of today. Look here: WPTexas/Tab header. I pulled up the page by accident. FYI - much of the (WPUS tabs) Texas content was already there under subpages. In particular, the Recognized Content has been there for a while, but probably only needs to be updated. The user who created this page is not one I know, but I'm so happy there's someone out there Maile66 (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Great, yeah JJ98 does a lot around WPUS stuff too. Glad to see them watching. --Kumioko (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've started the main page layout, what do think? JJ98 (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Note for WPTexas/Tab header - I understand its just a project and the project can do what that like color wise, but colors no matter how pretty they are should never override user accessibility or impend the navigational potential of a link. Its a policy for a reason even though its broken all the time on templates within articles WP:Link color, WP:COLOR, WP:NAVBOXCOLOUR = Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers.. Good examples Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Tab header - Wikipedia:WikiProject United States. Moxy (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying you wouldn't use the blue background on the tabs. Sorry, Not sure what our trying to say. --Kumioko (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - I would not use white as a link color - as noone will think its a link to click onMoxy (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks for clarifying. --Kumioko (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

2012 Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all your contributions and hard work on the encyclopedia, I am pleased to present Kumioko with this Tireless Contributor Barnstar. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Justin Bieber

does any one know if there Is thier a wiki project for Justi Bieber? --Cheyenne (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope, not yet. --Kumioko (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

USA WikiProject Template

Hi Kumioko!

At Talk:Louisville,_Kentucky the heading for the Louisville project is still "Kentucky - Louisville" but it needs to be changed to "Louisville" because the project covers the metro area and the metro area has portions in Indiana

Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I know. I am still waiting for the admins to update the template from the sandbox. Unfortunately its protected and I can't do it. --Kumioko (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I am an admin myself. If you tell me how to change this particular detail I'll go ahead and do it. Since it doesn't seem to be controversial I think it's fine if I do it. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Bot edit bannershell

Hi

Not sure if you wanted it on here or the bot page ... the one I noticed was diff, I haven't gone into any further checking to see if it happened anywhere else.

Apologies if this causes any extra work. I do realise it is a common edit, especially for those using AWB to do talk page clean-ups. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thats exactly what I needed thanks. The reason thats happeneing is because AWB has logic to move the WikiProject banners into the banner shell of there are three or more present. Because the GOCE template starts with WikiProject AWB thinks its a WikiProject banner. I'll drop a note to them as a bug and see if they can exclude that one. Please let me know if you see anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

AWB 7940

We just uploaded AWB rev 7940. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Great thanks for letting me know. --Kumioko (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

rev 7961 is available. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm not going to be doing any editing for a while and I deactivated the bot so I don't really need it. --Kumioko (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Camilla d'Errico

Hi. Thanks for all the work you did on the Camilla d'Errico article. However, you added her birth date without a source. As per WP:V/WP:NOR, et al., please include a reliable source citation if you're going to add material to the article. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually it was already there. I just changed the format in which it was displayed. --Kumioko (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't notice that. Given your extensive edit history, I figured it had to be something like that. :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Edit history aside I make mistakes too. --Kumioko (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Question about your question about bot speed

Hi Kumioko! In your WP:BON#Question about bot editing speed, you mentioned having your bot run two tasks concurrently. Just wondering if you were able to have AWB parse through one list of articles to complete two tasks, or if you were planning on having AWB run on two PCs at the same time, or if you have two instances of AWB running on one PC at the same time. I was wondering if the last option was feasable for my bot, but haven't gotten up the courage to try it out on my PC. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

A little bit of all of the above. I have found that my computer isn't strong enough to run more than 2 instances of AWB at a time but I frequently run 1 instance on all 4 of my computers (usually just scanning for problems) while I am at work or sleeping. Then I save the files and do the edits as I find the time over the day. AWB will allow you multiple instance logins though if thats what your asking. You will need to use 2 separate folders with its own instance of AWB to keep from getting a save conflict when they both try and hit the same file at the same time. I hope that helps. Right now my bot is pretty slow cause I have like 10 different tasks pending approval in BRFA at the moment but if they get approved it'll be working hard for a while. --Kumioko (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'll have to give it a try sometime. GoingBatty (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Kumi-bot issue with templates

Hi

Found another strange edit by the bot [4]

Though I understand what you are trying to achieve by removing "unnecessary" items from banners, I really wish you didn't do it - especially when errors like this go through in an FA banner! :¬)

importance=mid|attention=no|past-selected=no}}
importance=midno}

I have no idea how it happened, but am a little disappointed to be thinking I need to go and check every robotics article that is not assessed for importance just to ensure there are no more like this one (120+ articles). Chaosdruid (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

40 left to do, taken an hour so far ... Chaosdruid (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know and just for future reference if you tell me about the problem I will go back through and make sure I fix anything. Please let me know if you find anything else so I can make sure the problems are fixed. --Kumioko (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem, so far that was the only one I caught. I will do the last 40 tonight and leave a note here, though I think we both know it will probably be just that one error :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok no problem. Please let me know if you find anymore. --Kumioko (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Leon Panetta as a United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month candidate

Greetings, as a member of the United States Wikipedians' collaboration of the Month, this notice was sent to let you know that the article, Leon Panetta, has been nominated to be a future Collaboration of the Month article. All editors interested in voting for or improving these article are encouraged to participate. You can cast your vote here. --Kumioko (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Medal of Honor

can you have a brief look at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Medal of Honor/archive2 and see if the article is salvageable? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that a couple days ago and have been meaning to look at it. I'll make sure I find some time in the next day or 2. --Kumioko (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Photo request

Hi Kumioko! Have you had a chance to do photo requests in DC and Virginia? Is Fairfax County convenient? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Its not too far away. It kinda depends where in Fairfax county. I saw the request for the NTSB HQ in DC though. I might try and get that one in the next few days for you. --Kumioko (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! If/when you post the NTSB one, please let me know! If you are interested in doing additional requests, here are some ideas:

For Fairfax County photo requests I have the following to start with:

Fairfax County Public Schools HQ - 8115 Gatehouse Road Falls Church, Virginia 22042

Fairfax County Government Center (daytime photo) - 12000 Government Center Parkway, Fairfax

Herrity Building, 12055 Government Center Parkway, Fairfax

Pennino Building, 12011 Government Center Parkway, Fairfax

For Arlington County:

Arlington Public Schools HQ - 1426 N Quincy St Arlington, VA 22207

If you want additional DC requests:

District of Columbia Public Schools - 1200 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20002

District of Columbia Department of Corrections Central Detention Facility - 1901 D Street, SE.

Correctional Treatment Facility - off 19th and D Streets, SE, next to Central Detention Facility

Woodrow Wilson High School:

Hardy Middle School: 1819 35th St NW Washington, DC 20007 (while there is already one, a higher quality one would be nice)

Hyde-Addison Elementary School: 3219 O Street, NW Washington, DC 20007-2843

Oyster Adams Elementary School: 2020 19th Street Northwest Washington D.C., DC

If you feel that this is too much for now, I'll be happy to let you take others at a later date. If you want more photos, I'll give you some more ideas.

Thanks,

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok I'll see what I can do. Just FYI though taking pictures of school can be a sensitive issue. --Kumioko (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

I've taken pictures of many schools in Houston. Usually I've had no trouble doing so, especially on weekends. For ideas of what I am looking for, please see Commons:Category:Schools_in_Houston - I took most of the photos in that category WhisperToMe (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'll see what I can do. --Kumioko (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

wilson high have you checked commons? Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 04:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's even the remodelled version. --Kumioko (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You might want to ask someone else for these pics. I don't really feel very useful today and frankly I don't know if I am going to be doing much if any editing anymore. --Kumioko (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Queston on a couple of categories

Why do the following categories even exist?

Category:United States articles without listas parameter

Category:United States articles with listas parameter

They were created this past summer. They seem redundant and both seem unnecessary. Bgwhite (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Its so that we can determine which articles have list as. I agree there is some redundancy there though so maybe we can get rid of one. I do think we need to keep one though. Its just to help make sure that the article is sorted as appropriately as possible. --Kumioko (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that having listas in the US Banner is redundant and unnecessary in biography articles. All banners will use biography's listas value if the banners use {{WPBannerMeta}}. It's just taking up space and add extra work that doesn't need to be done. I've finally got most WP Ireland people to stop adding it to their banner. Bgwhite (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If thats how its supposed to work then its not working. If you take a look through the various classes for WPUS then yoll see it not sorting them how its set as listas for BIO. Also, that doesn't fix the sorting for non bios like lists. I also agree that not all of the articles need listas. I am open to removing it though I just thought it would be better to have a better sorting function rather than just go by article title. --Kumioko (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It does work. Looks fine to me. I looked at a random article that doesn't have one of yours (Talk:Greg Blache} and it is sorted correctly. I was actually wondering myself why your tag had one of these. Seemed redundant to me as well. I suppose I can see lists needing it, but I don't really think its all that necessary since it only applies to the talk page and not the article anyways. The only issue I could foresee with this is that one listas will override another, so if you have a different one from bio and you are last on the page I think yours would override theirs. -DJSasso (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I can remove the logic and then remove the listas parameter from the articles. Of course there are a lot of articles in the project that aren't biographies and wouldn't have a sort adjustment. I don't think its a huge deal how it sorts in the categories anyway personally. Just a question though, there are a lot of other projects that also use the parameter besides Biography. Should they be contacted as well? --Kumioko (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't remove listas completely because, as you say, there are articles that need sort adjustment... lists, article titles with diacritics or special characters, article begging with "the", etc. If you add a listas value, make sure DEFAULTSORT is also set to the same value and visa versa.

About DJSasso's comment. Yes, if a banner adds listas, it will override the value for any other banners that come after it.

I've been working with listas for a year and besides a few stray editors, I've only noticed WP Ireland and WP Russia articles adding listas. I've been contacting people directly to stop using it and for the most part they have. However, it would be nice if Projects changed their documents. For example, the WikiProject Ireland banner has this wording, "listas - a sort key for indexing the article". Changing it somehow to say biographies don't need it. Bgwhite (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok that works for me too. Frankly I was populating it off the WPBio banner so they would be the same anyway. --Kumioko (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I'm just getting back to Wikipedia after a break from it and I've noticed you've been doing a lot of good work with Bots and Tools. Maybe you were active before I left and I didn't notice, but in any case: Thanks. Tim 1357 ^talk 02:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow thanks a lot. --Kumioko (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

– Connormah (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. ---Kumioko (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

So the USAFE people have nothing, and I doubt the USEUCOM people do either. I've left a couple more questions on my talk also, by the way. – Connormah (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the heads up. --Kumioko (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You can possibly remove Eade. USEUCOM emailed me and said they're scanning one of him. – Connormah (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've gotten into contact with a couple more commands and hope to receive replies from more this week. When do you plan on going? If it's by next month, I may have a better idea of what we may need to look for at NARA so we don't step on each other's toes and can work efficiently. – Connormah (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure when I'll be able to get up there. I got a lot going on for the next couple weeks but I want to try and get there in the next month or so. --Kumioko (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm pretty sure you can remove Eade from the list - the PA office of his last command is supposed to send me an image. Can you add Bennie L. Davis to the list in his place (if I get a decent Eade image)? Seems that NARA is the only route for a good portrait of him. Thanks. – Connormah (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

US state WikiProject banner question

I can't remember which state has or hasn't come under the ~~benevolent dictator for life~~ US banner page. Should I start adding the US banner with the appropriate state work group or can I remain blissfully ignorant, add the states banner and your bot will change it later? Bgwhite (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears the parameters are listed at Template:WikiProject United States. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Either method is fine with me Bg. I check the category every couple days for new articles and run the bot against them so if you want to keep adding those its fine by me. --Kumioko (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Just don't touch my collapsed parameter :). Bgwhite (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:William S. McNary

Hi Kumioko! It seems that this edit to Talk:William S. McNary introduced the Category:Automatically assessed Boston articles as a redlink. Should the parameters be adjusted on this talk page, or should the template be fixed? Thanks for all the work you're doing to clean this stuff up! GoingBatty (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No I just need to create that category. Got qa few others I need to create too. Thanks for pointing that out though I'll get going on that. --Kumioko (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Texas so far

I've figured out a few days ago that if I go to "What Links Here", at the bottom I'll see if you got it tagged as needing banners. But I've noticed something that seems to have skipped it. I have 33 Texas bio articles I created, with the WikiProject Texas banner on the talk page. The tagging skipped them. So, I did a random sampling of Texas bios not created by me, but with the talk page Texas banner. Those also seem to have missed your tagging. And it doesn't seem to make a difference if the Texas banner is the top banner or not. I have no idea how many Texas bios are out there, but probably a lot.

And here's another thought. I noticed a long time ago that nobody is doing any project talk page assessments at Texas. My articles have it, because I put it on myself. This has been years since anybody was doing the assessments. I don't believe anybody is running a bot out there to catch what should be part of WikiProject Texas. There surely are hundreds or thousands of articles out there that are, in part, related to Texas.

And maybe not just Texas. Maybe out there in Wikipedia cyberspace, there are tens of thousands, or a million, articles floating free not attached to any project, not assessed. Maile66 (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. My power went out for half the day yesterday due to some weather so I only got austin and a couple thousand into texas done. Theres still about 22, 000 left to go. As for tagging articls your right. That seems to be a common issue. I have a bot task open to do some of them but they want me to submit each run separately. At least for now. I did some preliminary checking a while back and I came to about 50, 000 pieces of content related to Texas but I',m sure there's probably more. --Kumioko (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Boggles the mind, when you think that the most recent total on the main WikiProject Texas page is just under 24, 000 for everything. That would mean half have no banner. Multiple that times 50 states. The WP structure as it's presented to the general public is not geared to point out the various projects for new editors. Maybe Jimmy Wales needs to do a media tour and talk about the projects. Maile66 (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Threating a block

So, I've got a user threatening to take me to ANI for misuse of AWB. Threat is here. As you are a regular at this, what do you think of it? Bgwhite (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Let him and explain the circumstances. I don't see you did anything wrong and its likely they won't either and I'm not sure why they think its a violation of AWB. You should stop until then though. I'm getting ready to submit an ANI as well on something similar. --Kumioko (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Projects statistics tables in general

Bit of a heads up here, if you weren't aware. I just left Jj98 a message about this re the Texas project main page. But afterwards I looked at the WPUS main page and see the same thing, so maybe it applies to many projects. Under Project Statistics, there's a table listing statistics by Quality and Importance. If you click on Current Statistics, it takes you to a page that is updated by WP 1.0 bot. Problem with that...the bot hasn't run in over a year, at least not for Texas or WPUS. It seems that 2009 is the last time that bot ran on a regular basis. When you go to User:WP 1.0 bot, it seems some projects are running this bot currently. It just seems to have slipped its tracks for Texas and WPUS. Maybe others. Maile66 (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it runs a couple times a month I think partially because so many projects use it they do that to keep from beating the servers up too badly. If you ask User:CBM about it he created it so he can probably explain better. There are some things we can do if you just want the numbers more frequently though. There used to be a way to kick the bot off manually. It stopped working for a while but I think its back on now. --Kumioko (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

So maybe a key editor who ran it for Texas left around January 2010. Since Jj98 redesigned the Texas page, and may still be doing some designing, I don't want to just jump and delete that table. But I don't think it's an asset to have 2-year-old statistics to represent any project. If it were up to me alone, I'd delete the table and be done with it. When you are finished running all the new tagging over at Texas, I think those statistics could change considerably. Somebody - maybe either Jj98 or you - put a paragraph above that table citing project statistics as of today's date. Of course, those statistics also conflict with the statistics updated yesterday under the little clean-up broom Resources. Maile66 (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I just double checked and walked through the logic. The numbers are updating every couple days. If you take a look at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Texas it just updated a few minutes ago. --Kumioko (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you know more about this than I do about how things work. But can you explain why the WP 1.0 bot comes up with 23, 526 articles , the paragraph right above it lists 18, 942 articles as of today, and the Clean up listing that updated yesterday says there are 19494 articles. Pardon me, but I have an Accounting background, and it just seems these should all balance out to the exact same number. Maile66 (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The easiest way to explain the difference is that they all count the articles in different ways from different sources and potentially at different times. If you watch the numbers within a day or 2 they'll change.--Kumioko (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I see. Ah, ha...I just found something. When I say the updates ended January 2010, I'm clicking on "Current Statistics" at the top of the table and looking at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Texas articles by quality statistics, not User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Texas. Looks exactly the same, except the history page of the former says it has not been updated since January 23, 2010. Same situation exists over at WPUS. User:WP 1.0 bot/Second generation, explains at the bottom of the page that the original bot was turned off January 23, 2010, and the new bot began. Do you know how to transclude WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Texas to the "Current Statistics" link? I think that would resolve this.Maile66 (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Pause button?

I appreciate your trying to fix the mess the over-enthuiastic WPUS tagbot caused, but you're AWB-ing away WPUS banners from articles that have been legitimately tagged as well. I posted on WT:BIRDS but wanted to put a note here directing you to that so that you'd be aware before doing more. Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you give an example please. If the bots wiping out banners thats definately something I need to fix. --Kumioko (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't the bot but the AWB tag removal. Examples at WT:BIRDS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Bot work needed

Good day. I found your name on the bot list. The IMDb part of Template:CongLinks has been changed to match the usage of the other IMDb templates. We now provide only the IMDb ID, without the "nm"-prefix. About 1700 pages have been affected. We need to change {{CongLinks [...] imdb = nmXXXXXXX [...] }} to {{CongLinks [...] imdb = XXXXXXX [...] }} (remove the prefix). Is this something you can assist with? If not, do you know anyone who can?

Yeah thats a pretty trivial change but I am getting beat up with people having issues with my bot so it might be better to submit it on the Bot requests page and see if someone else is available. If no one else wants it I can probably do it in a few days. --Kumioko (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'll submit it on the bot request page first. Ddnixx (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Note

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Happy Valentine's Day

File:Valentine's Ducks.jpg	Rubber duckies for you
	Happy Valentine's Day Kumioko! May this year bring you lots of #WikiLove, as you deserve it! SarahStierch (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Aww thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Bad faith

For you to refuse to discuss the issue at hand with me and then accuse me of vandalism is not only bad faith, but does not speak well for you in terms of being able to work with others. I find this behavior lacking in character. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not refusing to discuss anything. You are in blatant violation of Wikipedia policy both in 3RR, Undue ownership and harrassment. It needs to stop. For you to remove WPUS is one thing, to also remove the WikiProject Bannershell, WP New York and New York city and other improvements to the article shows that you are blindly reverted edits I make without first checking what they are. So this proves you are the one who refuses to discuss the issue. --Kumioko (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh? You've run from my talk page, you've run from the bot page, and you ran from both of the prior discussions about the WPUS scope. Also, if I was claiming ownership, why aren't I removing ALL WPUS tags? You are painting with far too wide a brush, and I welcome this discussion. That is, unless you run again. Also, you'll have to explain why I didn't revert (say) American Soldier (album), when you put a legitimate tag on it. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't want to talk you just want to waste time. You do not own the articles so regardless of what you think it should be you do not have the authority to stop me from adding the WPUS banner to talk pages. If you have a problem with the projects scope take it up on the projects talk page like. I assume you didn't revert it because you hadn't seen it yet. You reverted the others when I added other tags like New York, New York city and Rhode Island. The bottom line is here you don't have the authority to tell me I can't add a banner. You don't have to like it but thats the way it is. --Kumioko (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"You don't want to talk you just want to waste time." Yes, you've got me pegged! 6 years on Wikipedia, and all I want to do is waste *your* time. Please.

If you want to talk about ownership, go find yourself a mirror. After all, you keep reverting my reverts. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverting the status of the page to remove the WPUS banner which you have done is undo ownership. Adding the WPUS tag to the article is not. If I were replacing the Connecticut banner with WPUS then your statement woudl be correct. I think they should both be there. --Kumioko (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

Given that you have gone back to edit-warring, I have blocked you for 31 hours, as per the notice below. Whatever else had happened, you were told at ANI (at least by me) that your edits could be considered Edit Warring, and that they needed to stop. You then proceeded to revert again. So, you're blocked. You desperately need to engage in discussion with other editors on these issues, you cannot just ignore other comments and move forward anyway. The block is short because I really really hope you understand that discussion is paramount - I understand that others likely would have blocked for longer, and I cannot object to that. But I'm hoping, once your block expires, that you sit down at the table and discuss how to move forward. Future edit-warring will, of course, be met with much more severe blocks. Do be careful. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for Edit Warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Had you blocked Mark as well I would have said fine. Since you have chosen not too this is a complete slap in the face and is completely absurd. Its also by the way of ensuring that I cannot respond to any of the discussions currently ongoing. Great job. --Kumioko (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually after reading what was said here screw it. Leave me blocked. This place is not longer worth my time. All I wanted to do is try and improve the pedia but all anyone wants to talk about is how I am such an asshole. Ok thats cool I can see how much I have wasted my time now. Thanks for clearing all that up. PS I would respond to some of the comments at some of the discussions but since some shortsighted Admin that doesn't know me from Adam decided to block nme for trying to stand up to a POV warrior named Markvs88 who is violating policy left and right I can't. --Kumioko (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC) I also think this is a pretty chickenshit way to make sure that I cannot respond to any comments during the ongoing discussions about WikiProject United States and the apparent comnmunity's desire to dismantle it. --Kumioko (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Just to clarify another matter, I will never use ANI to try and resolve a situation again. That process is clearly broken when the an editor tries to bring up a serious violation of policy and gets blocked. I am so F'ing angry right now about this I am not sure if I will ever edit again. This is complete horseshit. --Kumioko (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

In re the above and your post on my talk page via bot: I did not block Markvs88 because he stopped edit warring once the ANI discussion began. Simple. Note that I did not block you either - not until after you resumed the edit war. You had been told repeatedly that your edits in this matter were problematic, and yet you continued them. That was unwise, and resulted in your block. I do hope it doesn't sour you on the whole project - but that bit isn't part of the consideration when blocking, nor should it be. Achowat offers good advice, below, which bears examination.

As I said, I'm happy to unblock if I knew you would stop edit warring, but your statement at ANI makes that difficult. You need to accept that some editors disagree with your interpretation of policy (that other editors cannot remove project tags), and you need to accept that some editors are concerned with the tagging for this project in general (as per WP:VPP). If you can do that, and if you agree to discuss the matter before tagging resumes, then I would expect you to be unblocked in short order.

If we declined to block editors because they were involved in discussions, no one would be blocked - so it's unfortunate, but there's not really a whole lot I can do about that. If you have some pressing comment to append to one of those discussions, or something to add to the ANI discussion, feel free to put it here with a heading indicating where to put it - someone will copy it over, or note that you commented here. As for ANI itself, you may wish to review WP:BOOMERANG. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, I've blocked User:Kumi-Taskbot as a result of this edit. The expiry matches that of your main account, though this does constitute block evasion and might result in a lengthened block. I'm not lengthening the block, nor requesting such an extension, but thought it prudent to notify you of the possibility. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw that coming and expected it. Would have done it myself. I felt I had to tell WPUS and you how I felt so there it is. As for your reasons for blocking me I still think it was bad form and the block should have gone to Markvs88 and his shinanigans. This experience is leaving me thinking that I simply don't want to edit anymore. I enjoy it, I feel most of the time that its worthwhile and helpful but the comments lately have indicated that the community does not feel that way so its time to move on. --Kumioko (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As an extra comment Ultra the sign on your talk page should say "This is Wikipedia" Not sparta! Cause I just got kicked down the hole!. --Kumioko (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Wikipedia has a policy against edit warring. You were advised that your edit warring was disruptive (to the extent that a block already was a possibility) and warned to stop. You responded by continuing to edit war and announcing your intention to persist. ("I am sure he will revert that and we can go back and forth.")

You honestly don't understand why you were blocked? —David Levy 19:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand it but I don't agree with it. Mark was edit warring, I reported him, I was told it wasn't edit warring nor vandalism so I reverted his edits on that notion. Personally I think you all blocked the wrong editor and see it as a means to keep me from commenting in my defense and the defense if WPUS in the ongoing discussions. But no one cares but me so thats what it is. --Kumioko (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As explained previously, it doesn't matter who reports whom; all parties' roles are subject to scrutiny.

And when were you "told it wasn't edit warring"? I see precisely the opposite.

At 16:21 (UTC), UltraExactZZ stated that he was "really trying hard to find a reason not to block you outright for disruptive editing (Edit Warring and Highlighting non-vandalism edits as Vandalism)" [emphasis added].
At 16:34 (UTC), you replied by insisting that Markvs88's edits were vandalism (because "if reverting another users edits, that improve the article isn't vandalism then [you] guess [you] don't know what is").
At 16:40 (UTC), UltraExactZZ replied by noting that your disagreement with an edit doesn't make it "vandalism" and doesn't mean that it's appropriate to continually revert it instead of engaging in discussion.
At 16:44 (UTC), you announced that you'd reverted again and declared your intention to continue "go[ing] back and forth".

Do you seriously believe that the block is part of a conspiracy against you (and not the result of edit warring after you were warned not to)? —David Levy 00:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

		The Purple Barnstar
		for your harassment from those with ownership issues, since adding a wikiproject is a gnomish matter. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 20:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hope you come back

Hey Kumioko, as a very not-active member of WPUS, my watchlist informed me about the discussion involving you and your bot. I have no real stake in the matter: again, my role in WPUS was only to coordinate in my very limited area of expertise (The Constitution, mostly). I also belive that, given you were in violation of the only bright-line rule that I can think of, that a limited block was in order. You got heated and upset, I understand that (it happens to us all). Regardless of your block, I've seen the good work you do and I hope that you continue to contribute after your block expires. You're angry, with the Admin Corps, with other users, with the whole community. I understand, and it's tough. But try to remember why you started contributing in the first place, and I feel that you'll remember that building an collection of the entirety of human knowledge, absolutely free, is worthwhile. Take the day off, and I hope to see your name pop up on my watchlist soon. Cheers! Achowat (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I haven't really decided yet. The more I see the comments at the Village pump and the other locations makes me more and more angry at what Wikipedia has become. Too many are too worried about WikiProject US taking over and less worried about taking care of the articles and improving Wikipedia. It kills me that I can't even comment to the stupid, unwarranted comments coming from Users like Djasso and Markvs88 that just want to shut down the project and let all the articles, except those in their little watchlists, shrivel and die along with the project. I haev to admit that I find it even more frustrating that we have more than 1000 members in the various projects and only a couple have commented making me think they don't really care or that they agree. --Kumioko (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You really need to drop the conspiracy theories. No matter who's right and who's wrong, it's extremely unhelpful to attribute edits with which you disagree to a malicious desire to harm Wikipedia. —David Levy 00:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they intend to harm Wikipedia, just through benign neglect. But since this block ensures that I cannot comment on the matter in the appropriate discussions, and proves the conspiracy as you put it, it doesn't really matter. By the time I get unblocked the discussions will either have been closed or will have devolved to such a point that the discussion is unrecoverable and tainted by anti WPUS rhetoric. And they are not theories they are verifiable if you bother to take the time to look at all the facts instead of support the first block that comes along. Mark still isn't blocked, its absolutely ridiculous. --Kumioko (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You wrote above that the users in question "just want to shut down the project and let all the articles, except those in their little watchlists, shrivel and die along with the project". Even if you didn't literally mean that they "want" those articles to shrivel and die, you're failing to assume good faith.

Are you unwilling to consider the possibility they share your desire to improve Wikipedia (and merely disagree on how to accomplish this)? Is it inconceivable that they honestly regard some of your edits as unhelpful and reverted them for that reason? Might the block be a response to your edit warring (after being warned not to), rather than part of a conspiracy against you? —David Levy 01:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of the support comments actually indicate they think I was the one who reverted Markvs88's helpful edits. He didn't do anything but delete my edits. --Kumioko (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Both of you reverted edits that the other believed to be helpful. You really need to accept that. —David Levy 01:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well considering they are discussing at this very moment about how WPUS should be nothing more than a noticeboard, repeatedly stating that WPUS should not be able to define its own scope and removing the project tag when its added, there is no need to assume. The facts are clearly visible. The edit warring if you want to call it that was a direct response to Mark refusing to allow another project to tag articles on his watchlist, plain and simple. Yet I am blocked and Mark is not. The smug little shit is probably loving every minute of it and revelling that his POV pushing and harrassment have paid off for him yet again. --Kumioko (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to stop replying for now, as you're only digging yourself deeper (e.g. with your "smug little shit" remark) and I don't want to be blamed for provoking this. Best wishes. —David Levy 01:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well it doesn't really matter. I'm so pissed off right now I really don't care. Maybe tomorrow, next week or next month I will. But not now. --Kumioko (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I second Achowat's comments. I haven't been active in the WikiProject tagging, but I'm thankful for the times when we've been able to work together. There are lots of other tasks you could accomplish where your expertise would be beneficial and appreciated. Hope to talk to you soon! GoingBatty (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It's be a massive shame to see you leave the project over this. I sincerely hope you can cool down and return. – Connormah (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I got the message now

There's no real reason to come back at this point. After seeing the weak activity on the projects talk page, at the village pump and at my ANI anout the project with almost no comment from members of the project with the exception of 1 or 2 I have come to realize that DJsasso and the others are right. The project is just as dead as it was when I started. We have more articles, more projects, more members, but one active member, no matter how much they try or how many edits they do doesn't make a project. Here are just a couple:

The newsletter - Failed
The Collaboration of the Month - Massive fail
Improved collaboration betweeen US projects, that obviously don't want to communicate together - Another massve fail
The US Wikipedians Notice board, ha thats a joke - Another fail
The list goes on.

Its time for me to stop beating a dead horse. The projects dead I see no reason to resurrect what no one wants. I have been sent a very clear image by not only the community but the project members as well. --Kumioko (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

In your defense

I'm with you in regards to the issue's at hand, however your not helping your case by acting the way you are. Take this time while your blocked to calm down and when the block is up comeback (If you comeback) with a clear mind on what you want to do.--Dcheagle 20:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. You should voice your opinion if you agree. Too many editors who don't want us to succeed are filling the discussion boards with how there is no consensus. If no one speaks up then that will be consensus. I frankly am losing my appetite for fighting all the battles alone. --Kumioko (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I plan to I just want to get all the down before hand.--Dcheagle 21:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Great, glad to hear. --Kumioko (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Recall that being blocked foe edit warring doesn't warrant that you were wrong making your first edit. Blocking is only to prevent endless edits by both sides. Check WP:WRONGVERSION and WP:CALM. I'll check the whole discussion later. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly I would be a lot less irritated and frustrated if we both got blocked. Being that I am the one who initiated it and I am the only one that got blocked and many of the Support block comments appear to not have even reviewed the edit history of the articles affected but just supported the last edit (which was mine) to see who actually was the edit warrior adn what the changes affected were, makes it all the more annoying. --Kumioko (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocks are primarily preventative, not punitive. Both of you edit warred, but at the time of the discussion, only you continued (after being warned) and declared an intention to persist. —David Levy 00:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the reasoning this block was purely to prevent me from commenting on the discussion. As proved by the additional anti US comments left unresponded too since I was blocked. And the reason I reverted Mark, as I mentioned before, was because someone (I believe it was you actually) stated that it was neither vandalism nor a violation. So since it was neither then reverting Marks vandalist acts was condoned in your comments and thats what I did. Then My edits were reverted again. Rather than take my word for it why don't you go and look at the article edit history and see what transpired. By the way I expect it won't be long before someone comes along and blocks me longer or from editing my talk page to ensure I cannot respond at all and the WPUS disbandment can proceed unhindered. --Kumioko (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, in regards to the 3RR issue that someone just left a note saying that Mark never violated the 3RR. Take a look at the history of Talk:American Cruise Lines and Talk:American Crossword Puzzle Tournament. In both cases Mark not only violated 3RR but removed helpful changes besides the WPUS banner. --Kumioko (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the reasoning this block was purely to prevent me from commenting on the discussion.

I don't know whether it's better if you actually believe that or better if you don't. Both possibilities are quite troubling.

I do know that you need to accept responsibility for your actions.

As proved by the additional anti US comments left unresponded too since I was blocked.

To what comments are you referring?

And the reason I reverted Mark, as I mentioned before, was because someone (I believe it was you actually) stated that it was neither vandalism nor a violation. So since it was neither then reverting Marks vandalist acts was condoned in your comments and thats what I did.

Please see the list of diffs that I posted above. I hadn't participated in the discussion yet, nor had anyone stated that it wasn't edit warring. (On the contrary, you were explicitly told that it was and warned to stop.)

By the way I expect it won't be long before someone comes along and blocks me longer or from editing my talk page to ensure I cannot respond at all and the WPUS disbandment can proceed unhindered.

You practically asked to have your block extended when you evaded it via your bot account (a deliberate abuse of the community's trust) and cited this as an anticipated outcome. Please stop blaming the consequences of your actions on others. —David Levy 01:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe if I got the impression that people were actually reviewing the facts instead of just reacting to the most recent comment or action I would feel better about the situation. As it is I just think that its a pitiful state of affairs that people want me and WPUS out of the way so badly. To answer the other question about the discussions, There's one at the Village pump, 2 at ANI including the one I submitted on Mark which led to this stupidity and one at 3RR. Let alone the comments going on at WPUS. None of which I can respond too. I am not perfect and I accept that, I made mistakes and I admitted that, and was prepared to take action to fix those and those of the bot. But Sarek and Mark continued to bombard me with discussions to the point were I couldn't even stop typing before the next one was there. --Kumioko (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I can see at the ANI/3RR board that the Block supporters are continuing to mount. Most of which don't even know the whole facts of the case or are making wild accusations. Take Bushranger for instance saying I removed the WPUS tag from bird articles. Thats true but because User:Jimbleak indicated that project wanted no part of WPUS help. So I complied and removed the bird articles from the project. Then Bushranger decided that was in error and put some back. This is a prime case of one user speaking out of turn of the project. Awww fuck it just block me indefinately. That's what's coming anyway and they want. Might as well let them have it and get it over with. I can't speak to defend myself or my actions and when I try to they start talking of block evasion because some asshole blocks me in the middle of multiple discussions so that I can't possibly defend my actions from those who have wanted me and WPUS gone for years. I am obviously furious over this whole stupidity. In a few months the activity of WPUS will likely have dwindled to minimal levels and the disbanding of the project can commence. Few of the project members are following the situation nor have they made comment about it one way or the other so what am I really trying to prove anyway. Certainly there are other ways I can spend my time rather than spin my wheels here wherer I am clearly not needed or wanted. --Kumioko (talk)

Hey Kumioko, I've looked at this situation and Markvs88 was clearly in the wrong. They obviously do not have an appreciation of Wikiproject guidelines. That said, edit warring over a banner is a bad idea. And yes, you were edit warring. Using a bot to post was also a bad idea. With as many people that watch this page you could've asked for someone to post for you.

Next time start a thread at WPUS about including the article. If WPUS decides to tag an article, there is nothing Markvs88 or anyone else can do about it, per the guideline. See this and this. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Lionel I appreciate that somebody looked into the actual issue and didn't just react to the last comment. Unfortunately I don't think anyone cares. They've been out to get me and derail WPUS for years and they just took this opportunity to do so. I would wager that Djasso Markvs88 and a couple others will come back and rebut your comments with something to minimize it. They are exceedingly good at that. --Kumioko (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Editors should be able to comment at discussions about them while blocked

Its too bad Wikipedia policy will let a user get blocked so that they cannot respond to accusations against them or their activities and others can continue without allowing the accused editor to confront their accusers. Maybe, someone should suggest that when a veteran user is temporarily blocked the discussion about them is suspended until the user is unblocked and can actually comment. When policy will allow editors to continue to comment, condemn and rundown a fellow editor over a misunderstanding after being harrassed continuously by another user, and that user is not allowed to tell their side or comment without being blocked for block evasion there is something wrong with the system. I could see the issue if I was editing articles but simply replying to discussions were I am being insulted and accused, its simply ridiculous. Commenting at my "trials" at the ANI and village pump should be allowed. --Kumioko (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Since I cannot respond to comments about me in the appropriate discussions I will just respond here and hope someone reads them or relays them to the appropriate place. --Kumioko (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Kumioko/Sandbox1

A tag has been placed on User:Kumioko/Sandbox1, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kumioko (talk) 03:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Kumioko/Sandbox2

A tag has been placed on User:Kumioko/Sandbox2, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kumioko (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Kumioko/State articles

A tag has been placed on User:Kumioko/State articles, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kumioko (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Kumioko/Sandbox 11

A tag has been placed on User:Kumioko/Sandbox 11, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kumioko (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Kumioko/Sandbox6

A tag has been placed on User:Kumioko/Sandbox6, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kumioko (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Bushranger comments at ANI/3RR

Maybe the project will survive and maybe it won't. Only time will tell. To be honest with you I hope someone steps up and takes my place and the project continues to grow and flourish as it has for the last couple years. I never claimed to be the owner or leader of the project I just did the things that needed to be done to keep it running. Frankly, I think I did a pretty good job. Of course I made mistakes, including arguing with Markvs88 who seems to be above reproach. If I continued to edit I would surely make more. But in the end I think the 70 WPUS supported projects and Wikipedia are the better for it. I stand by my record. --Kumioko (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You are correct in yours statements at ANI that my nerves are frayed at the constant harrassment and policy violations of Mark and a few others. Unfortunately knowone seems to care about that. All you are doing is enforcing in them that their POV pushing and harrassment is acceptable and rewarding them for their tactics. They have clearly violated policy and all anyone can talk about is Hang Kumioko, block him. --Kumioko (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If they've violated policy, then they need to be dealt with accordingly. If the stress is getting to you, though, perhaps a voluentary WikiBreak might help recharge the batteries? I know how stress can get. Either way, though, I do wish the best of luck with the project - I hold no ill will against you, we all have "bad times". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

To Lionelt regarding the Articles you left on WPUS

You can add my support as well. For what its worth its not realistic to add every article to get a project consensus but I hope that if a few get approved then the point will get across what the project wants. I only wonder how many non WPUS members will vote against it to try and spoil the soup. --Kumioko (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No. You add your own support. Blocks are preventative: not punitive. If you admit that you were edit warring (which you were) and used the bot and an IP (they know) inappropriately, and agree to self-ban for 1 month from the articles you were edit warring with Markvs88 (I can re-add the banners), and agree to obtain consensus on the WPUS talk page for disputed articles (which only makes sense), you will probably get unblocked. It's time for you to get back in the game--you've been gone too long. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Its ok. I am "prevented" from adding my support so we'll see what falls out. If someone else wants to add it thats ok too. I'm not going to admit to anything. I'm the victim here not the villain. I also don't think I should need to garner consensus to tag articles for the project when the project knows and agrees (as is evident form the talk page comments) with what I am doing. Individually adding hundreds or thousands of articles individually to the talk page is a pointless waste of my time and others. I appreciate your help but I am just responding to comments and discussions at this point. I'm not going to be editing articles or anything else for the foreseeable future. Frankly I wasn't trying to hide. If I wanted to hide my comments there are a number of ways I could do so (create another account, use one of the other 5 computers in my house, etc.). I beleive I have upheld the spirit of my block which is not editing articles. I have only edited a discussion that was about me and affected me and my reputation. All things that should be allowable anyway and are only not allowed because of limitations in the software (the wikisoftware cannot grant blocks to some things and not others with the exception of Userspace edits).--Kumioko (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Only individual contested articles need be discussed on talk. Not hundreds. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of contested articles. I just didn't make an issue out of most of them using these 3 or 4 as examples. This problem has occurred with US Roads, Wisconsin, Connecticut, WPBirds and several others. There seems to be quite a few projects that don't want meddling from outsiders. --Kumioko (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines allow any editor to remove a tag in cases of error or other concerns. However if a project member restores the tag it is supposed to stay. But most people don't know about that. At WPConservatism we use a warning template as I've shown you. At this point you can either try to educate them or get consensus on project talk. It can get a little burdensome, but it does work, and the objectors go away. Just read the WT:RIGHT archives. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I doubt it'll work knowing what I have seen from experience dealing with these editors and their shenanigans over the last couple years. But good luck. --Kumioko (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't care about your project. I going to resign and leave WikiProject United States myself. Since I am member of WikiProject California, I wish I don't you to pull any time soon. If you have any problems, please contact me. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 15:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Already wrote a message to you JJ, see my comments further down the page. I really don't understand you. One minute your adding projects so fast Ihad to ask you to slow down and now you think the project is out of scale? It just doesn't make sense. --Kumioko (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

To Djasso's comment at WPUS

The problem with that is that there are about 254 members of WikiProject United States. It must be assumed that they know the scope and have seen my actions of tagging articles. Not including all of the members of the Supported projects this is a significant consensus. Additionally, a few have commented at the projects talk page that they agree with the tagging I have been doing, others have said so that are not members of the project and 200 plus members of the project have been silent on the issue either declaring they agree or don't care. Either way, it doesn't show that the community consensus is against us. --Kumioko (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I would also note that in the last couple months I have merged project banners or added additional tags to about 110, 000 articles. IN that time about 10 more editors joined the project. I was doing massive tagging and more people joined. Thats an odd parody of the community consensus you portray that indicates that our scope is too broad. --Kumioko (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You've been getting complaints for months about your tagging. You have known there was significant community disagreement with how you were doing it. You have been to AN on a number of occasions for it. To say you have consensus is clearly stretching things or you wouldn't be having as much of a problem as you are having. Having people sign their name to a member list...or in the case of a large number of people on that list, imported from other projects they had joined and you swallowed does not really mean you have consensus either if they have never commented on your actions for or against. All people have asked you to do is to stop tagging and discuss instead of pushing blindly ahead making large amounts of errors and tagging things that really shouldn't be part of your scope. There are many ways this could be handled with a lot less drama and battleground like you seem to be creating if not enjoying. You could have for example at a wider level suggested merging state templates with the country template. And I don't mean on a state project by state project level where as you say single editors could fight you. I mean in a more open area so that you can have broader feedback. I for one would 100% support any such initiative to merge banners in such situation. It would also still allow both projects to run separately if they so chose. The problem isn't so much your grand plan of a unified US project, its how you are going about doing it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Show me were I got a complaint and I didn't fix it where a fix was needed. Most of the complaints were nothing more than POV pushing and complaints from editors showing undo ownership. If you had bothered to read my comment, which you clearly did not, I did not include the subprojects members lists. I only included the list of members to WPUS that added their own names to the list. IF you are going to argue yuor point make sure you have your facts straight first. I did stop, several times, US roads said no and I stopped, several state projects said no and I went elsewhere, now there complaining about tagging articles, manu of which with no banner at all, that I am not in consensus. The fact is, some editors want WPUS to fail. They have been trying to kill the project, yourself included, since I brought it back to life a ouple yers ago. I have stated repeatedly I nor the project am trying to take over anything. But if the project is inactive, defunct or wants to join the group then they should be allowed to without editors such as yourself and Markvs88 tainting the discussions with your POV pushing. You don't want to join the projet, fine. YOu don't want you project in the supported projects list, also fine. But don't whine and complain and make lives miserable for those of us who are trying to make things better. And by the way, there are notlarge amounts of errors. Thats just flat out lies. There were some errors with this last run, yes, I already admitted that multiple times and was in the process of fixing it prior to the you and a couple other editors grabbing your torches and pitchforks for the witch hunts and blocks. And by the way, that "braoder initiative where projects can discuss issues" already exists. Its called the United States Wikipians noticeboard and you know who uses it, almost no one. I think you know that and that is how you, Mark and several other editors want WPUS. Unused, unresponsive and out of your way. I don't know what irritates me more. That you are trying to sell me this BS story or that I think you actually believe what you are saying is true. --Kumioko (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for other editors, but I certainly don't want the project to fail, I think it could be a great project if we could step back a moment and reorganize to be more efficient. I just think it could be better organized and better laid out and that there should be a civil discussion about that. But you seem to think anyone who disagrees with you view of how things should be are evil and out to get you. You don't seem to have the ability to admit that maybe there is a better way of doing things. Numerous people both involved and not have tried to point out solutions that don't involve destroying anything but you have ignored all of them. So don't complain to me and blame other people for your own actions that caused this situation. Throwing around bad faith assumptions at everyone who doesn't 100% agree with you isn't helping the wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your kidding right, you have said multiple times you want the "project" to be a noticeboard. Since we already have a noticeboard for US wikipedians no body uses its pretty easy to deduce how another one would be used. You have already been very clear in what YOU want. So has Mark and several other editors. The end result is a dead project. I do want to clarify another point. There are better ways to organize it and things that could be done. The problem though is that no matter what is done it pisses off a few users. You scale it back, some get upset, you make it bigger, some get upset, Newsletter, collaboration, etc. Something always makes somebody mad. So you can either live with a few angry editors or you can shut the project down so that you don't make anybody upset. --Kumioko (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I said that was one option. What I have said all long was that there should be some discussion. Why are you afraid of discussion? -DJSasso (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't/am not afraid of discussions but when the discussion is from editors outside the project talking about changing its scope, or the articles it tags and things of that nature its innappropriate. I'm not telling Connecticut they have to join WPUS, I'm not telling Connecticut they cannot tag anything from when it was a colony before it became a state. I am only saying the project should be able to have a tag on the article. Thats it. Nothing fancy, nothing evil. Just share the page. But thats not good enough, you want the project disbanded. You want it gone. Well you may get what you want cause I am though fighting alone. If the projects members want the project to continue then they'll need to fight for it. I may comment I may not but I'm not going to be the asshole fighting alone anymore. I'm always the one left holding the bag when the dust settles and all the project members are watching from the treeline where its safe and out of enemy fire. So this time, I am going to stand from the tree line and watch the battle. --Kumioko (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

See you keep talking in an us vs. them attitude. That is the problem. This isn't a battle. As I link to on the WPUS talk page, per the WikiProject manual anyone that edits articles in the scope of the project is a member of the wikiproject whether they list their name on the page or not. So all these editors you keep calling as outsiders are actually part of your project since they edit American articles. So instead of setting it up as an us vs. them situation, why not try to collaborate with them in a calm manner to find a middle ground. I am willing to bet there is one that would work well for both sides. It will just take some patience and some laying down of "arms". -DJSasso (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify I think you have a very backwards view of how a project works and whay there are members. Yes you are right, everyone has the right to edit, the projects nor its members own the articles, anyone gets a voice in discussions. BUT a projects members define the scope of the "project" and how it functions, not the community. The community can start a discussion about a projects activities if they are innapropriate and there are limits to what policies a project can set (WikiProject Novels breaks this rule in my opinion with their policy that no article in their scope can have an infobox but thats a different discussion). I have abslutely no problem sharing space with Connecticut or any other project, for the most part I have left them alone if they didn't want help. I did not create the us and them mentailty the other projects have done that. Just try and add a banner to a Connecticut or USRoads article and see how fast you get a verbal thrashing. I have also helped any project that asked for it as far as I know whether they wanted to be supported by WPUS or not. Oklahoma is a good example there. So is Virginia. There are a lot of others as well. The bottom line is the project members need to set the scope and a project is free to tag whatever articles they feel are in their scope. Its policy, even though there are multiple policies that can counter it, and others that can counter them. The endstate is that a project can tag an article and another project can't tell them there not allowed. PERIOD. In the end this whole discussion is academic because, unfortunately, the members probably won't comment. --Kumioko (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Markvs88's comment

Mark, in response to your comment: "YAWN. Wake me up when you have something to say. BTW, where's the Pump proposal? Oh, that's right. You're still running away. Becuase you know you can't back your POV." on your talk page. The comment is so childish that it defies the need to make a comment. It baffles me how comments like this and the incessant provocations and harrassment and editing practices haven't gotten you blocked other than you do so few edits in such a small corner of the community that it doesn't even blip on the scope of most editors. I may stir some trouble but its because I am doing tens of thousands of edits all over Wikipedia and making changes to things you don't even understand. There is a saying: "If you don't do anything, you can't get blamed for anything. If you do a lot, there's a lot that you can be blamed for." Right now there is a lot of blame being thrown at me so you know what that means right? You got it, I am doing a lot and you are not. --Kumioko (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to Marks comments at ANI he does NOT want to talk he wants me to simply say YESSIR and stop tagging. He does not want discussion he just wants me to agree with him which I do not. I also am not trying to goad him, he has been harrassing me and goading me for the last 2 years periodically if I so much as touch a Connecticut related article. And the comunity allows him to do it. Don't believe me? Just check the comments on his talk page. He also would lede you to believe that hes a good little editor, hes cunning and clever, but not a particularly good editor. --Kumioko (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Eyeserenes comments at ANI

To EyeSerene about your comments at ANI. Not only did the community send a very clear message that Markbs88's actoins were acceptable. They told him with their actions they are condoned and supported. I got blocked and no one left him so much as a message. Not one peep. So that tells me how the community feels about me, what I do here, what Mark does and how he acts. It also shows me that if you keep your head down, don't try and change things, don't do too many edits to improve the pedia and just kep a low profile then no one will mess with you. But if you try and change things, to make them better, to actually try and make a differenc, you get slapped down. --Kumioko (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it says that Markvs88 participated in the conversation at ANI, acknowledged when I said that the edits were edit warring, and - this is the important bit - stopped edit warring. Nothing more. Had Markvs88 been the one to continue the edit war, he would've been blocked, as I've said. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Mark edit warred plain and simple thats why I reported him. Not only did he revert the addition of the the WPUS tag but to other improvements as well. This whole things was just a show to get me out of the way so that the dismantling of WPUS can begin. Which may be for the best at this point. Since the majority of the members don't seem to care and I have become disinterested the project will likely die out. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think I am. --Kumioko (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If there's some Cabal-approved plot to dismantle Wikiproject US, no one saw fit to tell me. Nor did I stop to consider what effect your one-day-and-change block would have on the fate of an entire Wikiproject. And whether or not another editor was sanctioned has absolutely nothing to do with your actions and whether or not they merited a block. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well then you failed to take into consideration the long history of abuse and harrassment I have been required to endure from Mark and others. Had you bothered to take the time to look into the matter rather than just block me and move onto the next task you might have caught onto that. Hell if you would have looked at Marks edit history and the comments he was making it should have been obvious. --Kumioko (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on your Comments EyeSerene its obvious that you feel badly for how I treated Mark. This would indicate that you haven't read his talk page. Anyway enough of that, Mark will undoubtedly tell you "I have tried to talk to Kumioko" and "He won't listen" The truth is, as I have stated before, Mark is unwilling to listen to anyone who hsa a different view. They asked me to not tag articles for some projects such as Connecticut and Us Roads and I have mostly respected that even though it requires me to spend a lot more time picking out the articles for certain projects so that I dont tag them and hurt their feelings. IN some cases though, such as those that give the general appearance in the title that it may be of a national importance (such as containing US, United States or American) I tagged them anyway based on the policy that everyone in these discussions is ignoring saying that a project can tag the articles in their scope without another project saying no. This whole fight boils down to that policy. Does a project or do that not have the right to tag articles in their scope. I'm not talking about taking over proejcts, forcing another project to change its scope or to merge with WPUS. Just allow the banner to be there, thats it. Just like WikiProject Biography has banners on all the Biographies, just like some projects like WPMILHIST have a biography subproject that overlaps with BIO, or a US project that overlaps with US or an Aviation Subproject that overlaps with Aviation. If its in the projects scope they should be able to tag it. PERIOD and that should be the end of the discussion or we should delete that policy and let projects continue to show ownership over the articles, whichi will lede to other problems of an extremely bad nature. --Kumioko (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue you brought before ANI was edit warring. You were both doing it but because you are both valuable, experienced editors and neither of you had broken WP:3RR there was no appetite for handing out blocks. As you've said somewhere, the fair solution at that early stage was to block both of you or neither of you, and opinion seemed to prefer neither. Usually the hope is that by discussing with each other and hearing the opinions given by other posters, a dispute can be resolved without the need for admin action. Just when this seemed to be happening you reverted again and said you would continue—an editor of your experience must have realised that this was akin to putting your head in a lion's mouth and then punching it in the balls. No matter what Mark had done, at that point you'd broken the rules in such a blatant way that it couldn't be ignored. Your own actions took the focus off Mark's conduct and you've paid the price for that. My comment was really just an attempt to make sure that Mark knew that his edits were inappropriate as well, but as UltraExactZZ says he knew when to stop and didn't go too far. I appreciate that there seems to be a wider issue behind all this, but ANI isn't the place for sorting that out because it's not something admins have the remit to address. Perhaps if an RfC is filed you'll all find it helpful in clearing the air and suggesting how you can work out your differences. EyeSerene^talk 17:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history of those three articles I left 2 of them had been broken by mark and third would have been had I not started the discussion. RFC's are just a waste of time. They always have been. They very very rarely ever come to any kind of conclusion and are usually closed after people lose interest.--Kumioko (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

To bobrayner at ANI

Im not sure if you were referring to my actions or the actions of others. I will assume they were directed at me though and say this in response. I haev dealt with a lot of editors over the last couple years who want and try at every chance to force WPUS to close down. It seems this time they have their wish. My edits, regardless of how they may appear are not as problematic as would seem in the ANI. The ANI only covers one tiny corner of the issue. I clearly admitted, in multiple times, in multiple venues to multiple editors that there were some problems with that bot run. I admitted it and was trying to fix it. But then I was bombarded by bogus discussions saying things like I can't tag an article in Connecticuts scope, or WikiProject birds or a number of other things. Some editors had a problem with me converting some articles tags to WPUS. They were perfectly fine with the aricle being tagged with the state project like Texas or Massachusetts, but when those projects fell under the supported projects list, now they are out of the projects scope. I don't have a problem admitting my mistakes or fixing problems I create when needed. What I have a big big problem with is the community running me down without first bothering to find out the actual facts. Frankly I am appalled at the whole chain of events. ONe would have thought that an editor with as Many edits as me (over 320, 000 not countied the 150, 000 for my bot), a few hundred articles created, multiple pieces of content to FA, GA, FL and others and more than 6 years on wiki would have received a little better faith. I am completely ashamed of the Admins that handled the case, the project members who don't seem to care about the project (except for a couple) and generally how I have been treated. --Kumioko (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

To JJ98 at the WPUS talk page

JJ you really baffle me. You have added more projects to the WPUS banner than anyone else except me, you have been one of the other primary architects of many of the pages and functionality and now you think its time to break it apart. At this point you might be right since there were only a couple of use working on the project and even now only a couple have commented. --Kumioko (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a bot that WP:US uses for newsletters and such? If there's a question about the project's future and you're concerned about a lack of interest/comment, it might not be a bad idea to send a notice to the membership asking them to discuss the matter. A Request for Comment might also draw more opinions, though not necessarily from project members. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I used my bot which is no longer operational and since we are both blocked I can't do it. --Kumioko (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to send them a message feel free. You should also send it to the members of all of the supported projects. Several of them haven't had the member lists transposed into the WPUS members list yet. --Kumioko (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well yeah, obviously it's not happening today. But better that the message should come from you, and then when there's a discussion to be had - there's no deadline. To keep things calmer, I've suggested an actual RFC; this might take some of the drama out of the discussion, as it's clear that editors feel very strongly (both ways) about this issue. It would also generate wider participation than a discussion with just the various projects, and some outside perspectives may be of value. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion, I really do. At this point though frankly with everything thats happened and whats been said its a little hollow. If someone else wants to send a message to the users or contact the projects thats fine. I have done what I coudl and apparently it wasn't enough. If the project members want the project to continue then they will need to step up and make it happen. Its pretty clear to me that my time is better spent on other endeavors both in the voices of the community comments and the silence of the project members. No, there will be no messages or newsletters or edits to the project from me. At least not for a while. If the project members show me that they want a project then I may help out but until I see its not just my POV then theres no sense wasting my time. I will add this one note, if the decision is made to break the project up, writing the code to demerge the banners is pretty easy so don't let anyone tell you I made a nightmare problem. --Kumioko (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Also on the RFC issue, its just a waste of time. I have tried that, tried the village pump, gone to ANI and frankly I don't care enough anymore to spend the next 2 months fighting about a zero sum gain. Everyone will talk and voice their opinion and well go off on a bunch of little tangents about editing habits, blocks, comments, etc. In the end the discussion will go no where, just as they almost always do and 6 or 8 months later well be right back in the same place. The bottom line is any project can tag the articles they want. Thats a long standing practice but no one has the courage to say it and stand behind it. They say it and then walk away when the start gettign deluged with discussions. Thats how Mark and his crew operate. They smother you in discussions, they forum shop they harrass and eventually everyone gets tired and just gives up and the discussion dies out. Thats how its always been and everytime someone like me stands up for themselves they (I) become tagged as the asshole by the community and kicked back into the whole (Cause this is Wikipedia, not sparta). --Kumioko (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion

Might I suggest that someone leave a note on the appropriate forums that I am responding here to comments so that everyone knows that the discussion is being force fragmented? --Kumioko (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Diego's comments on policy

@Lionelt:Note that while "WikiProjects have sole and absolute authority to define their scopes", this authority doesn't extend to tagging articles; on the contrary, the guide has a warning against overtagging. Though I was assuming that any member can in principle join any project they wish, this doesn't seem to be encoded in policy; the closest guideline I've found is Inappropriate exclusivity stating that the definition of a "real" member of a project is usually innacurate. Other guidelines that I've found directly relevant to this issue:

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Violating_policies: "Policies, guidelines, and articles belong to the whole community, not to WikiProjects or individual editors. WikiProjects may not demand that editors abide by the project's "local consensus" when that conflicts with the community-wide consensus."
Wikipedia:CONLIMITED#Level_of_consensus: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Getting_into_fights: "Disputes may arise between projects or outside editors over formatting, such as the preferred system for organizing an article or the contents of a template.", "In disputes with another project or with editors outside your project, your only effective tool is negotiation. If you need the cooperation of another project, approach them in a spirit of cooperation and look for appropriate compromises."
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Article_tagging: "Overtagging is disruptive - WikiProject banners should not be used to duplicate the category system or portals."
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Over-tagging: "Tagging articles can distract new projects from more important tasks. (...) 2.Project banners on the talk page should not be substitute for, or simply duplicate, Wikipedia's categorization system. To correctly identify an article as being related to a topic, place the correct category in the article itself. 3.The presence of a project banner indicates to readers that the article has been, or will be, developed by members of the project, and that questions about the article can be directed to members of the project. When the project does not expect to support an article's improvement, it should not add the project's banner to that page."
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Identify_the_best_structure: "WikiProject - This format is best for topics with thousands, or at least several hundred, of pages in the proposed scope. You'll still want to investigate any related projects, because they may already have a task force covering the same topic."
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Inter-project_collaboration : "There may also arise situations in which it is beneficial for an article to be actively collaborated upon by multiple projects." Diego (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to copy here but I had to due to the block and due to the size I started with in outdent. So where to start. The general problem. One of Wikipedias worst qualities is that it has policies that override other policies and policies that tell you to ignore them all like WP:IAR. So although we could go back and forth arguing who is right or which policy takes precedence over another or if a Guideline supercedes a policy or vice versa the point we need to get at is, as I have tried to clarify multiple times with no luck, is can a WikiProject tell another it cannot tag an article. Several of us say yes and several say no. So who is right? Either tagging an article is allowed or it is not! Either a WikiProject or its members can display Ownership over an article or they cannot! Its not a matter of what we as individual editors want, its a matter of what the policy says about how the community functions. And lets remember those policies were derived by consensus so they are by definition Consensus. I will address each of your attached policies in order as numbered above:

Really doesn't apply to the ongoing discussion other than WikiProjects have to follow existing policies. Whether a project tags or doesn't tag an article isn't a policy violation nor is it disruptful to the community other than the few POV editors that get upset.
Again this policy only pertains minimally to the conversation. Consensus works at many levels. In the project, in the task forces of the project and at the community level. Eventhough WPUS's scope allows it to tag articles at that project level doesn't mean that Ohio must tag the article even if it says ohio in the title. If Ohio says its out of scope then it doesn't get the Ohio tag.
Another minimally useful policy for this discussion. I have had issues with some editors and I have brought them to the appropriate venues only to have the community point at me and WPUS as the bad guys because we are trying to place our banner on their articles. Not replacing, not forcing the other project under us, just adding a banner. HOW DARE WE
&5. This brings up a good point and let me explain this in some detail. The bad thing about the categories are that there are hundreds of thousands of them, some of them 2, 5, 10 levels deep. Many of these categories are linked to things that barely relate to them or don't relate at all due to errors. This makes it very unreliable and difficult to do article improvements because there spread out and infused with a complicated structure. If the article is tagged with the WikiProject banner or banners then I need to only go to one place, maybe two, to get the articles I want. I can currently pull roughly 260, 000 pieces of content from one spot rather than spending hours going from category to category trying to pull them in. Additionally, its nearly impossible to determine what content pertains to the US because of a flood of projects (more than 100) many of which are inactive, having differing category structures, different category and maintenance page names, etc. By standardizing some of the naming and category structre, automated projecess (such as Popular content, Featured content, To do lists, membership lists, etc.) I can automate a lot of these functions to remove some of the need for human intervention. Something that cannot be done using categories alone. Of course this is a very very high level and limited explaination of why tagging is good but thats a start.

6. Yep couldn't have said it better myself (see above). WPUS has hundreds of thousands of articles under it, each of the 70 or so supported projects have articles under them (some like Washington, Ohio, Indian and Texas have tens of thousands of articles each). To work with these using the category structure alone would not only be difficult and time consuming it would be impossible. The simplest way to maintain these articles is to add the banner most applicable. In some cases I can do this from the start using the appropriate project (such as Articles starting with Texas might go in Texas). Sometimes I have to add the WPUS banner first and then come back and add the other project in a follow up run. Remember these projects are supported by WPUS, WPUS doesn't own them.

7. It has been proven time and time again, not just by me but Wiki wide, that some projects do not play with others and not only don't want to collabroate, they can get very very nasty to anyone that touches their articles. WPUS and I have done a very good job of collaborating with other projects when allowed too. We worked with Oklahoma and Virginia when they needed help but didn't want to be in the project and I told Texas recently here that I would help them how I could even if they didn't want to be a supported project. Some opted for the support, a couple (Houston and Dallas-Fort worth) didn't and I was perfectly ok with that. We have also recently added several GLAM/US related projects as joint projects as well as the three US related task forces of WPMILHIST. This was because we all agreed that the more eyes on these projects and articles the better.

In the end though after all that is said and done, the question still remains. Can a Project tag articles and set its own scope or can they not? I personally doubt anyone will put an end to this madness and clarify that question other than to point to some policy or discussion that says this or that. In the end Wikipedia is just a soap opera and I am the episode finale of yesterday (by today it was mostly forgotten about again). --Kumioko (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This is what you don't seem to understand - the answer to your simple question "Can a Project tag articles and set its own scope or can they not?" is "sometimes it can, sometimes it can't". There is not a single guideline or policy that can decide that question one way or the other, because the five pillars override policies, and there's a pillar that "Wikipedia doesn't have firm rules". Together with the WP:CIVIL pillar, this means that being or not allowed to tag articles will depend on how each particular clash of projects will learn to collaborate. (P.S. if you think this core tenet is a bad quality, I don't get why are you trying to make a project-wide impact in a site whoser core rules you don't agree with?)

The only way the single policy you want could be created is by a huge centralized discussion where lots of coordinated editors pushed for a consensual creation of that single rule. The confrontational attitude you adopted at the village pump makes it impossible to create the momentum required for that coordination. Moreover, I already mentioned that I don't think this rule could be created, even with that effort; such a rule should be the solution for a systemic problem, which this is not.

I think it's a shame that you decide to abandon Wikipedia for this incident. However, if you aspire to make changes in a Wikipedia-wide scale, you'll have to learn how to create a Wikipedia-wide consensus. At the very least, when you make a proposal you could include a link to the previous relevant discussion to place the proposal in context, instead of complaining that some people will comment "without even knowing the whole facts of the case". ;-) Avoiding fights, personal accusations (there's no such thing as "violating policy" in a site with a core value that policy can be ignored by consensus) nor anything that may create bad feelings. If you don't feel ready to do that at all times, IHMO you should avoid putting yourself in the limelight and the responsibility that comes from running a bot. Have I nice day, I'm glad that you considered important answering my recollection of the policies I thought would be relevant. Diego (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

First I want to say in a very tactful and respectful way that I think you have a very strange view of policy if you think there's no such thing as "violating policy" in a site with a core value that policy can be ignored by consensus. I also think that since I took on the task of recreating, managing and maintaining a WikiProject, a bot, a newsletter, A collaboration of the month and a Collaboration that it would be obvious I was attempting to make Wikiwide influences and cross project cooperation. What you fail to seem to understand is that there are multiple editors that have attempted to derail and undermine that at every opportunity and when I finally got tired and frustrated with it and reported it, I am the one that got blocked and shit on. WikiProject should enforce its policies evenly, not show favoritism towards one editor. As I stated before if we were both blocked I would have been fine with it, taken it on the chin and kept editing after the block. Since that is not what happened I was sent a clear message my participation in the project is no longer needed nor wanted.

In response to my misguided view that a WikiProject should be able to tag the articles in its scope without other editors and projects showing ownswership over them. Perhaps I was a bit overzealous in my tagging but if that is true then there are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that the community would rather be left abandoned, with no or sole projects support and would rather that the content be left to rot. If content is not tagged with a project banner then you have only categories in which to do maintenance on the related articles or content. Since much of the content doesn't have categories, the category structure is prohibitively hard to work with and use with an almost endless supply of problems associated with them. Additionally, bot notifications such as Popular pages, featured content and article alerts doesn't work with categories alone. THEY MUST be tagged with a project banner in order to work. If you fix that problem then my overzealous tagging would not be as needed. Perhaps instead of using Category:WikiProject United States articles to display the 200+ thousand articles we could simply allow the input of hundreds or thousands of categories instead. It seems like that might be more efficiant (sorry for the sarcastic comment there). The above comment, I think covers why I think they should be tagged but I will clarify, Its so that the article or other content is covered and counted by the project so that the project will be notified/counted if it is promoted, deleted, moved or submitted for something like reviews or discussions. In addition, here is a quick run down of why I was doing what I was doing:

First I recreated the WPUS project, built up the infrastructure, got things running and editors watching. Done
We developed some procedures for automating some of the tasks, maintaining the articles and establish scope. Done
Determine which US related projects are active, which ones are not, which ones want/need help or to build a closer collaboration and which ones do not. Done
Next we needed to identify the content (this is what I was currently working on) not already tagged and tag it. If we can't measure it we can't manage it.
Once we identify completely what we have (an inventory so to speak), we determine what needs to be kept and improved, what needs to be eliminated, what should be consolidated (Such as the myriad of Presidents of the United States lists, one line stubs, etc.) and what we needs to be added (like the 900ish Medal of Honorr recipients that don't have pages yet).
Continue to refine the above topics, recruit users, tag articles as they are developed, automate as many as possible through bots and automation, etc.

As with many things these were a work in progress and I was refining things as I went. Additionally there were overlaps between items. I hope this helps to explain what I was doing, and why and what I won't be doing in the future.--Kumioko (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Recognized. You should point to a copy of this explanation (minus the unavoidable bile) if you keep discussing things on this topic with people. It helps setting context on the background you came from, which I'd rather not known in its entirety (you're right that I don't know which battles you have been through at the Wikiprojects, just wanted to share with you how it's seen from the outside; it's not that I think policies shouldn't be enforced, but that in this case there isn't one in place). Wish you well. Diego (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and your probably right, this explaination would probably help. Unfortunately after this latest incident from a bunch of oversalous admin cabalists to Automatically assume bad faith and single me out I don't really have the desire or energy to do such things. I am still frustrated, mad and dissappointed at the whole event. I have zero faith in the project, ANI or RFC. All of these IMO are just a waste of time at this point. Knowone wants to take the time to look into the issue. They just want to hit the trigger and shoot the closest thing in sight. I also want to add that your wrong in that we do have policies in place we are just choosing not to follow them, subvert them with other policies like IAR or something equally useless. --Kumioko (talk)

:-) Farewell, and if you ever give in to temptation again to create a structure for a whole super-class of articles, just remember you're the one who should be accomodating - a fixed set of your own requirements as listed above will hopelessly seen as "forcing unto others"; achieving this may require abandoning a whole subclass of articles for which there is disagreement with another project. But who am I to give advice, I've never actually tried it at that scale. Cheers! Diego (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If I may, I would recommend the immediate break up of WikiProjects Candada, MILHIST and Biography as being too big to maintain in the same context that United States is being carried. All three of these projects, particularly Biography haev more content than WPUS and so by your calculations, must be too big to maintain and are failures in waiting. Cheers to you as well my friend. --Kumioko (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Cookies for you

Hey Kumioko not sure what all the fuss is about but I just wanted to remind you, and others, that you are an awesome Wikipedian!!! And you have a fan from New Jersey!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --Kumioko (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Kumioko/Sandbox 11

When you moved one of your templates from User:Kumioko/Sandbox 10 via Template:SI-related to Template:WikiProject Smithsonian Institution, you moved with it some old edits about the Commandant of the Marine Corps. I have moved those old edits to User:Kumioko/Sandbox 11. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and sorry about that. I noticed that a while back and would have fixed it myself had I had the tools but as it was I left a request for that to be done at AN but no one took action so I let it stay. --Kumioko (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If you ever need assistance with that in the future, go to Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. :) Disavian (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I never even heard of that before. Its pretty much a nonissue at this point since I probably won't be editing much anymore but thanks all the same. --Kumioko (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Fastily removal

Noted. In re: Your removed comment, I've seen the responses above. I may comment on the issue of an RFC, but I think this reply will probably serve instead, since it is trumped by my killing of Wikiproject:United States. I'll be perfectly honest with you, and I apologize if this comes off as flippant - I assure you that is not my intent. Wikiproject United States has 253 listed members (active and inactive), a boatload of other associated projects with their own members, and over 179,000 Articles tagged as within scope. If the entire project folds because one editor was blocked for just over one day, and for lack of project tags on four disputed articles - well, quite frankly, that's a very very good thing. Such a fragile project should be totally done away with in favor of a more robust and resilient organization. Mark it Historical and start over.

I think the reality here is that you have grossly inflated the importance of tagging articles as within scope, and you miss the key point about that scope - articles are within the bounds of what Wikiproject US handles whether or not they have tags. The question is how best to tag those articles in a way that does not interfere with the tags of other projects. Several editors have questioned the process, and you've responded repeatedly with the fact that they don't have the right to tell you which articles can be tagged. And that may be. But you've never once responded to the question of whether they should be tagged, nor have you responded to the question of whether you and others from WP:US can work with other projects to co-tag or collaboratively tag or in some way accommodate each other and still get articles tagged in some way. And, quite honestly, that's infuriating to see on what is by its very nature a collaborative website. If you're unwilling to start an RFC (and I can't find any links to the previous RFC you reference, above) just because someone might disagree with you, then I don't know what to tell you.

On the subject of Fastily's removal - meh. The critical thing is that I saw the comment. It's a non-issue moving forward, not worth spending your time or mine to discuss - there are bigger issues here, as you well know. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well you are right about a couple things for sure. If the project collapses because I (one editor) left the project then maybe it wasn't meant to be. You are also right that WikiProjects are fragile things and many many of them have failed because one primary primary was run off. One editor can and often does have a dynamic effect and when they leave, for whatever reason, it causes a cascading effect in other areas. This is true when Durova stopped doing image corrections, this was true when several of the bot operators left their bots unattended (ArticleAlertbot was a good example of this) and this will be true as I walk away from the project, possibly for good. What I find infuriating is that the community would rather pick and choose when and which policys to follow and will tolerate the actions of editors like Mark but when editors like myself try and truly make a difference the community decides we are too much trouble.

In response to my misguided view that a WikiProject should be able to tag the articles in its scope without other editors and projects showing ownswership over them. Perhaps I was a bit overzealous in my tagging but if that is true then there are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that the community would rather be left abandoned, with no or sole projects support and would rather that the content be left to rot. If content is not tagged with a project banner then you have only categories in which to do maintenance on the related articles or content. Since much of the content doesn't have categories, the category structure is prohibitively hard to work with and use with an almost endless supply of problems associated with them. Additionally, bot notifications such as Popular pages, featured content and article alerts doesn't work with categories alone. THEY MUST be tagged with a project banner in order to work. If you fix that problem then my overzealous tagging would not be as needed. Perhaps instead of using Category:WikiProject United States articles to display the 200+ thousand articles we could simply allow the input of hundreds or thousands of categories instead. It seems like that might be more efficiant (sorry for the sarcastic comment there). The above comment, I think covers why I think they should be tagged but I will clarify, Its so that the article or other content is covered and counted by the project so that the project will be notified/counted if it is promoted, deleted, moved or submitted for something like reviews or discussions. In addition, here is a quick run down of why I was doing what I was doing:

First I recreated the WPUS project, built up the infrastructure, got things running and editors watching. Done
We developed some procedures for automating some of the tasks, maintaining the articles and establish scope. Done
Determine which US related projects are active, which ones are not, which ones want/need help or to build a closer collaboration and which ones do not. Done
Next we needed to identify the content (this is what I was currently working on) not already tagged and tag it. If we can't measure it we can't manage it.
Once we identify completely what we have (an inventory so to speak), we determine what needs to be kept and improved, what needs to be eliminated, what should be consolidated (Such as the myriad of Presidents of the United States lists, one line stubs, etc.) and what we needs to be added (like the 900ish Medal of Honorr recipients that don't have pages yet).
Continue to refine the above topics, recruit users, tag articles as they are developed, automate as many as possible through bots and automation, etc.

As with many things these were a work in progress and I was refining things as I went. Additionally there were overlaps between items.

I hope this helps to explain what I was doing, and why and what I won't be doing in the future.--Kumioko (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

excellent exposition. however, i would say to your "If we can't measure it we can't manage it." - that you may have to manage things without perfect data. tagging will never be complete, active/inactive is constantly in flux. how can follow-on tasks flexibly respond to changes? these bad actors are on the way to blocks. people own things here, but only temporarily. therefore, delegate tagging, return later. there's way too much to do, to waste time with the Hedgehogs around here. route around them as an obstruction. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 16:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I hear your words and appreciate the point you are making. Its true that I would never be able to tag everything and certainly not everything needs a tag (most redirects for example)> I do think that if the content says something that infers to the majority of the world a National tie (US, U.S. United States or American for example) and pertains to the US then it should be tagged. Additionally, as I have stated before, there are more than 100 US related projects. About 70 have some association to the US project at this point which leaves out about 30ish. Do you know how hard it is, to tag artices for the project, while filtering out 30 US related projects that reject help? Especially when those articles relate to a supported project of WPUS. If I tag an article that relates to one of the supported projects that falls under the scope of US Roads or Connecticut of several others the little hairs on my nexk stand up because I have to prepare to fight every single edit to every single article. Not to mention the other project like Birds, Aviation, or the hundreds of others that may, or may not, want help or the US tag to be on the article. Not to say they all are showing signs of ownership but many do and knowone but me seems to think this is a problem. A deeply troubling, frustrating and difficult thing for me to come to terms with I am afraid. But now I have had enough, I'm done with it. Admins and editors and projects here are too interested in their own little swimlanes and causing drama than building an encyclopedia. Its more important to protect my turf than to make improvements. That is not what I volunteer my time for. And your comment about these bad actors being on their way to blocks! I'll beleive that when I see it. I have reported several, on several occassions and who is the bad guy, me. I'm done. --Kumioko (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

life is too short to waste time with toxic anti-leadership. the drama queens do so little work, that you can get a lot done ignoring them, just working with people you like. we ain't here to slay dragons or see justice done, but write an encyclopedia. let them own their islands of merde. believe me the powers that be see who is competent and who ain't. whether the project can get to a healthy productive culture is an open question. fastily keeps coming up at ANI [5], if he keeps it up he will wear out his welcome. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 18:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh I know and believe me I know he's not the only one. Even the great Sarek got a block recently. This place is all about promoting the drama queens and holding down the ones who actually want to do the work. If you don't do nothin' you can't get blamed for nothin' but if you do a lot there is a lot you can be blamed for!. I would expect it and deal with it if I was making big bucks or acting as the President. Since this is voluntary and we do this for free I am less inclined. I figure its only a matter of time before I get blocked again for saying something that someone or someones doesn't like. I rather preferred being a more productive editor, worknig on the WPUS project and articles and without that I feel some what lost in my way. Since the community doesn't want to project it will take me some time to figure out what, if anything else, I want to do here. --Kumioko (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

come on over to Wikipedia:GLAM/NARA, there's lots of military photos to scan, ping dominic with stuff you want to see, and we can work on the personnel stack, you never know what you'll find. we can get some tifs rather relying on the CMH low rez. commons is relatively quiet with dominic cover, or source. come to a dc meetup or wikimania, we can talk. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 18:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, we've met..lol. You'd remember me if ya saw me. I keep trying to make it but my schedule is too hectic. I was planning on coming to Wikimania but now I'm not so sure. We'll see what the future holds. --Kumioko (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

ah yes, well come to a missvain editathon, more productive. i may give a talk at wikimania, if i can squeek past the missvain jury. maybe you should give a talk, (about milhist or other things) they need some input. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 20:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I've met her as well. Cute..anyway, Thats cool, I'm sure you'll do a great job. I thought about volunteering to speak and there are several topics that I could speak on but I don't think that very many want to hear what I have to say at this point nor do I believe I would be very welcome. The WPUS project hasn't been a very popular endeavor I'm afraid. Too many have too much control of their specific spheres of influence and they don't like the perception of a loss of control or power. Its like congress with intellectuals, nerds and folks with various degrees of social ineptitude (myself included). --Kumioko (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

i want to hear, work something up, they can only say no. the trolls can't show their faces. they're going to talk about india campus ambassador fiasco as well after all. some lessons learned, questions comments would be good. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 03:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

A week ago I would have been giddy as a school girl at the thought of speaking at Wikimania about anything (the bathrooms are over there, Stay away from the yellow snow, etc. ) but these days I am afraid my interest and enthusiasm in the project is not what it once was...and likely won't be for some time to come. By the way if your still trying to remember what I look like I am the Tom Cruise look alike in the back of this picture in the maroon shirt between the 2 young ladies from the SI. --Kumioko (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

i kinda agree, and will head over to commons and source for a while. however, reduced expectations are in order, and increased tolerance of ankle biters (90 day wonders)- (perpetual september doncha know). we still need to contest the high ground. we have a little circle of competence with missvain and mindspillage, i think i will stick with it. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 18:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your good faith attempts to make impact on a project-wide scale, even if some people wouldn't understand them. Diego (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

New sub-discussion on AN/I

Here --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You're making enemies, kid, and fast. I implore you, take a few days off, cool your head...or else all the good work you've done over the years is going to be covered up by a nasty Indef Block banner. Achowat (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

All I have tried to do is make the place better. But all I did is make enemies then too. I just can't do anything right. I try and make it better and piss people off, I try and follow the policy per these new ANI and policy discussions and I'm still pissing people off doing EXACTLYT what they are telling me I should be doing and what the poly says. So it seems my original conclusions were correct. We choose to follow the policy that meets our arguments at the time. When you go to court don't expect justice, expect the law!. Besides, apparently according to the community I haven't did anything worth talking about. Just a bunch of trash and time wasted. --Kumioko (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No, when you were trying to make the encyclopedia better, you ran into people who had a different idea of what "better" meant. And remember, this is an Encyclopedia, and everything we do should be to make sure the encyclopedia ends up better at the end of the day than it was at the start. And we have a long tradition of ignoring policies and the like when it prevents us from building a better encyclopedia. There was a huge show of support after your WP:3RR block, there are people who want you around, people who've said that after your block was up that you'd be a productive member of the project. Don't make liars out of them. Contribute, because we need good contributors. Achowat (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well like I said, if we would have both been blocked I wouldn't have been mad. Since I was and he was patted on the back as a poor innocent editor just trying to protect some innocent articles against the bad old Kumioko and his evil project, it sorta rubs a fella the wrong way. Like I said, my actions were punished and his were accepted and condoned. Thats Drama I mean Wikipedia for you. --Kumioko (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you're thinking about this the wrong way. You broke WP:3RR and had to take a day and a half off. That's all that happened. There was no "massive conspiracy", there's no attempt to kill WPUS. The more you repeat those accusations, the more you tarnish the good work you used to do. I'm begging you, take a few days off (Completely, don't log in, don't look at your watchlist, don't read your messages) have a few beers and just calm down for a second. Accept that you were edit warring, accept that it was inappropriate and not constructive, strive to not do it again, and move on improving the Encyclopedia. You can do it, but you need to stop focusing on what was done and need to start focusing on what you will do. Achowat (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I can accept I made mistakes and I'm not perfect. What bothers me is that the community condones harrassment, violations of 3RR and other things and when they feel like it they react. This is the kinda things that are the reason why Wikipedia is dying, we are hemmoraghing editors and reputation at a rate faster than can be compensated for and I am just the latest victim. Whether you want to admit it or not you all played right into the hands (as did I) of those those that have been trying to bury WPUS since day one. Additionally irritating is that only 3 of the members of the project even bothered to comment. Most of the comments were from editors outside the project. That tells me that the project is not worth fighting for. If the members don't want it then I'm just one guy fighting against the windmills. --Kumioko (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I also echo the comments above. It'd be a great shame to lose you over this. Oh, and don't worry about the NARA stuff above, I'll explore alternate ways in getting the images. Hope you can come back, you are one of the better editors here. – Connormah (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

if it's such a shame, how come nobody does anything about it? this is the inevitable consequence of "editors are a dime a dozen." experienced editors are leaving and the culture does not care. it comes from "electing your officers": same result as the revolutionary war and civil war. when will there be adult supervision? "thinking the wrong way": tell me how to think, think you? not a cabal: pure incompetence. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 05:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I also think you should probably take some time off from process-related discussions. While I feel that your MFD was entirely in good faith and can see why you'd want it gone, because of the discord you've brought up (specifically at those two RfAs) few people are going to take you seriously. Work on the encyclopedia for a little while, do what you used to, and I'm sure you'll get back the clout you once had. Achowat (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I can understand that and I'll take that advice. You won't see anymore of that type of submission from me and although I may start editing some articles again it probably won't be much or for a while. If I do I will likely employ my right to vanish, start fresh and leave this account behind. For what its worth I don't think I ever had any clout and frankly I have gotten the impression both directly and indirectly that my activities here were neither useful nor appreciated. It wasn't until recently I actually started to believe that wasn't a few rogue editors but the majority opinion. --Kumioko (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Be careful not to confuse WP:Courtesy vanishing with WP:Clean start. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

As long as I come back as a contributor and not a vandal and change the types of articles I edit, then there shouldn't be a problem. Unless of course that was a subtle hint that you would rather I just leave and not come back because you don't believe my activities to be of any use anyway.--Kumioko (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no, no kind of hint at all! You just said you were going to exercise your right to vanish but still edit, which means you're not actually vanishing at all. "Vanishing is not a way to start over with a fresh account. When you request a courtesy vanishing, it is understood that you will not be returning. If you want to start over, please read the article on Clean start instead. If you make a request to vanish, and then start over with a new account, and are then discovered, the vanishing procedure may be reversed, and your old and new accounts may be linked." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I am familiar with those and I apologize I used them interchangably and made it more confusing. Also, for what its worth unless they fixed the bug, I don't believe an account merger would work anyway. There used to be and as far as I know still is a bug preventing the Mediawiki server from doing certain things like merging accounts with extremely high edit counts. Since I am pushing 320, 000 edits I don't think it would be possible without a lot of work and the return on investment wouldn't be there. --Kumioko (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3 If you do return under a new username, you let me know. As far as I am concerned, you're still accepted by me.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,530,212) 20:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW! Do you think you can archive your page. It's a little hard to navigate through to talk to you. (Especially if you have an edit conflict.)—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,530,882) 20:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL, thats too funny. Just did that and saw your comment

Talkback

Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 03:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,396,930) 03:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you have misinterpreted consensus.

Kumioko, I feel you have certainly misinterpreted the consensus you believe is asking you to leave Wikipedia. I simply have not seen this assertion. Wikibreaks can be therapeutic and I would not argue against your decision to take one. But I do hope you will soon return, invigorated. If you are curious, request an editor review and although you might see some candid commentary, I am pretty confident you will not see a consensus for you to leave. My76Strat (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Kumioko/SIarticlesgroup1

A tag has been placed on User:Kumioko/SIarticlesgroup1, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kumioko (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Kumioko/Maryland articles needing banners

A tag has been placed on User:Kumioko/Maryland articles needing banners, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kumioko (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Kumioko/Montana articles needing banners

A tag has been placed on User:Kumioko/Montana articles needing banners, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kumioko (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Kumioko/Citation template documentation

A tag has been placed on User:Kumioko/Citation template documentation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kumioko (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Recommendation

...that you take a relaxed sit back and approach editing from a different perspective. There are many ways to edit. Also, a small wikibreak may do you some good and allow you to clear your head. Editing should be enjoyable. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, over the last 6 years I have had things that pissed me off and caused me to "Retire" or take a Wikibreak, sometimes for several months but I always come back. This time I decided to take the less dramatic root and just pop in and out. I'll make a few edits here and there but honestly I am finding it much much easier to walk away this time. For the first time in a long time I didn't think about what edits needed to be done when I mowed my lawn. Many editors have left WP over the years and its still here. It might be time for me to learn another language or write another book. --Kumioko (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Chill!

Kumioko, for the sake of yourself, I strongly think you need to go on an at least week long Wikibreak. Don't log in. Don't go to ANI. Don't check your talk. Come back and avoid all drama and edit the articles you like and WP:DROPIT. I can tell you are still pissed and I think it's hindering your judgement and actions here. Please do this before an admin indefs you for disruption, because that'd be a great shame. – Connormah (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

If your referring to Ian. He made an uncivil comment to a new editor and I told him to cool it. Thats it. This place is freakin joke. Someone should be talking to him about his actions and I am the one being told to chill out. --Kumioko (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

submissions page wikimania [6] Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 15:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM

January 31st you nominated the Leon Panetta article, but it says 'needs 3 votes by January 31st'; did you mean February 29th? Dru of Id (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content
Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books
Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

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 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, just thought I'd call by to say "no hard feelings" over my RfA, which passed anyway. It was obviously just one of those times for you. Best wishes, – Fayenatic L (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It really wasn't anything personal and aside from the comments from the peanut gallery has nothing to do with the recent beatdown I had in ANI. I really do believe that too many admins let the tools go to their head and once they are an administrator its nearly impossible to get the tools removed or to argue any sort of problem exists. Any suggestion of impropriatey is almost almost met with strong opposition regardless of the allegations and nearly always anything the admin does is considered above reproach and uncontestable as long as its a regular editor and not another admin that submits the comments. I much prefer that the necessary tools be given to the user in chunks or as needed rather than the whole package. Fayenatic london--Kumioko (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI is a minefield, K. The drama boards are almost to a one a fairly toxic environment right now and best avoided. I am not familiar with what happened to you, but Pesky mentioned you'd had some trouble, and, as someone who filed an ANI that blew up in my face, plus I had a colleague I respect get dogpiled in another flash mob, I'm troubled by the pattern of good editors getting run off that I am seeing lately. I attribute it to cabin fever, but maybe that's just wishful thinking. Montanabw^(talk) 19:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but I am starting to believe the toxicity has a pattern to it. Almost like it is happening for a reason (possibly to run good editors off). BusterD (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes. I wish I thought it was just ANI but unfortunately its the whole place these days. Too much petty fighting, article ownership, drama, name calling, etc. It just seems less and less like people want to build an encyclopedia than to blog about this or that problem. We have about 1200 essays in how to call our fellow Wikipedian one name or another with justification. Frankly its gets easier every day to leave. Good luck and happy editing though to both of you. --Kumioko (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll agree that the place seems to be batshit crazy sometimes. Kim vd Linde's retirement message is an apt description of part of the problem, though I'm not certain her solution (more identified experts) is the solution. But given the way people bully and insult one another around here, then claim the other guy is the mean one; well... I feel Wp goes through phases, right now it appears to be a phase of toxicity and I hope it will pass. Montanabw^(talk) 03:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think perhaps all of us contributors -- anybody who has been here for a sufficient period of time -- will sooner or later become embroiled in sometimes rather nasty disputes. I had a theory about why -- somewhat akin to more fights breaking out in ice hockey rather than football or basketball -- and it's this -- like hockey, we can not see the other person coming -- they emerge out of nowhere and can seriously set us on our butts by deleting a page, or a chunk of text, or tagging it with a negative label -- I think it's the surprise factor, plus anonymity (like masks in hockey) plus the radical shift -- one minute we're on top of the world, then next we're on our butts -- which can cause rather sudden fights and tense emotions. I've had my share. What I've kind of learned, over time, is to not respond suddenly when something of mine is reverted, but to wait a few days, a week, even a month, and then go back with a milder version. Usually, over time, tempers lose their sting. Plus, I try to learn from other people, since generally most of them are doing what they think is right -- so there's a learning curve for all of us. Good luck with this, and I hope you find a way to deal with it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. You have new messages at Talk:Jose Calugas.
Message added 23:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Some bubble tea for you!

I am sorry to hear that you are leaving. I hope you'll come back after some rest. The projects needs you, despite what some might have implied. Speaking for the (silent?) majority, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Piotr. With all the drama from me getting fed up with certain editors poking me constantly for the last couple years and no one wanting to do anything about it, it was bound to happen. My reputation is pretty much ruined now so editing wouldn't be the same. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a few critics can put any significant dent in your reputation of one of the most active Wikipedians. Ignore them, improve content, and don't let them get to you. I've been through such times myself, and in an even worse position. I have faith you can endure it, although a short wikibreak can be helpful to restore one's sanity. I hope to see you back in a few weeks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Medal of Honor recipients

I see you recently retired but you apparently still check this page so I have a question about Medal of Honor recipients if you don't mind. I just created an account today and am interested in Medal of Honor recipients and noticed you had a listing of their pages that need to be created/worked on. I spoke to another editor (ACDixon) and they said I should just copy it over to my user page. If its ok with you I am going to copy that page over to my Username and work on some. I'll give you a few days to comment, I still need to figure out how to do it anyway. I just thought I should mention it. I don't know what the rules are here for such things.

On a separate note, as I was reading through discussions and all the rules I noticed your name seems to be everywhere. It appeared to me that almost every page I looked on you had made a comment or edited in some way and IMO it would be an awful shame if you walked away after investing all that time and energy. Anyway let me know your thoughts on using your Medal of Honor page if you check this. If you would rather not after all that's happened I will understand and I can respect that. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if he will answer, so... Any page on wikipedia is free to copy as long as you give credit to the source. In this case, just copy the page over. I'm sure Kumioko would be happy to see all the Medal of Honor recipients have an article. Bgwhite (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok great thanks. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks BG, one of these days I'll stop coming back so I'm glad someone is watching my page for a while. Maybe someday I'll start editing again but not for a while though. I don't want to taint your view of the place so I'll just say its just not the same as it used to be for me and leave it at that. It sounds like you read a lot of the discussions though so no need to rehash old wounds. Feel free to use those pages where they are or copy them. Either way its fine with me. BG is correct I would love to come back and see all the Medal of Honor recipients have a page someday. Several of the needs articles pages are other pages that have been embedded (called transclusion) into the one so it might not be easy to copy if your new to WP. If you need help let me know and I'll copy them for you. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you I appreciate that. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean you want me to do it or do you want to try and do it? --71.163.243.232 (talk) 05:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

ShmuckatellieJoe... if you need any help, give me a yell on my talk page.

I'll keep an eye on your talk page. Sad, 3 of the 6 people who I consider mentors and keep me editing here are gone. RIP JimCubb. Chzz and you were driven out this month. That means I'm becoming an "elder" editor and getting closer to be driven out. Give me a yell anytime if you need something done. Bgwhite (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hate to see you go

Another great editor leaves the project. Kumioko, I really hate to see you go. Your dedication to making this project was amazing. What is going on in Wikipedia? Instead of retaining their great editors and contributors, they do nothing? You take care my brother and may God bless you. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you tony. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Wall of Honor

For your awesome contributions and countless editing of military related articles, you have been inducted into my "Wall of Honor". I really appreciate every thing that you have done Tony the Marine (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

GLAM

Hi Kumioko. I stopped by to ensure that you saw my reply on GLAM getting started and noticed your recent retirement. While I haven't been directly involved in your Wiki-work I have certainly noticed your impact, and I just wanted to reach out and say that you may get a lot out of becoming more involved in the GLAM-Wiki movement, particularly in our up-and-coming US community. Sometimes its easier to work more in the real world when things get so bogged down on-wiki. It's a shame but, I at least am one of many who are hoping things will get better - and GLAM is helping me to do that. Feel free to touch base! LoriLee (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but I finally had enough of the drama. Good luck though. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

In Re: No Hard Feelings

As I've said repeatedly, the problem wasn't your comments - the problem was that you assumed that you could continue edit warring after being told that you were edit warring. AGF was what kept me from blocking you in the first place, and I even said as much when I noted that I had been looking for a reason not to block. But AGF only goes so far. Your defense was that you were a longtime contributor who just HAD to defend his edits right then - but I didn't check your edit count before blocking, nor did I survey what discussions you were involved in right then. I didn't have Cabal-approved orders to "Silence Kumioko". And, honestly - do you seriously believe that you should be able to violate policy as long as you've got a lot of edits over a long period of time? You were told to stop doing what you were doing, you didn't, and I blocked as a result. I have no hard feelings toward you, and wish you the best - but I really wish you'd quit misrepresenting the block as anything other than a minor screwup in the history of a long-time contributor. Brush yourself off, log in, and move on.

As for being a new admin - 4 years certainly seems to go by in a blink. Maybe when I hit a decade they'll let me take the training wheels off. [7] UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

First let me say I apologize I didn't realize you had been an admin that long. As for what I did. To me, a user reverting an edit because they feel like they own articles and feel obliged to tell a project they CANNOT tag an article, amounts to vandalism. Vandalism does not apply to the 3RR rule. Second, I wasn't edit warring, I was repairing vandalism by a user that was blindly reverting edits made in good faith simply because they did not like the edit or the editor. The bottom line is, Mark violated policies on civility, article ownership, 3RR and a variety of others. All I did was revert their blindless and pointless reversions. Regardless of your intent, your block eliminated my credibility in the discussions, many users viewed that as I was wrong in every discussion and stopped relying. Thereby ending the debates before they were finished. As you mentioned, you didn't look at the history, that much is clear. Had you bothered to look into theh history, or the edits themselves, which you clearly didn't do, you would have seen that the edits Mark was making amounted to Vandalism. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The messages left here from other editors, dismayed at your "retirement", would speak to the contrary - Your credibility is intact, or was. How many long-term editors have an empty block log? Not nearly as many as you'd think. I think it far more damaging to your credibility that you continually attempt to justify your actions by bringing up the actions of the other involved editor. By rights, both of you should have been blocked immediately. I instead told you both to stop edit warring and discuss the problem. Mark did so - you did not. So, you were blocked and he was not. The edits Mark was making were most certainly not vandalism. I went back and checked, just now, and am unsure what part of the history here justifies Edit Warring, nor can I find a provision under our edit-warring policy that gives you permission to edit war if you're right and the other guy is wrong (if indeed that were the case). You seem hell-bent on convincing me that I blocked you mistakenly; consensus at ANI would disagree. I understand that you don't like it, that you don't agree with it, and that you're still sour about it almost a month later. And that's unfortunate. I wish it were otherwise. But I'm not going to tell you that I made a mistake when I blocked you for edit warring - because I see no evidence of that. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I doubt the consesnsu at ANI looked into it anymore than you did until just now. As for policies, how about the one that says a project can set their own scope and tag the articles in it? Or article ownership? Those were both discplayed in by Mark when he violated those. Its fine though, as you said the consensus showed me that the community is more tolerant to editors being uncivil, showing article ownership and harrassing other editors than they are to violating 3RR for vandalism. The three articles were discussed on the WikiProject United States page and others agreed they fell into the projects scope. Mark reverts any article added to the scope of WPUS if it already has connecticut (the exception being if it includes another supported project of WPUS). He makes comments such as the ones he made to me and on my bot page and everyone seems ok with it. Thats only one user, I didn't even mention Brad 101 and his uncivil comments that can still be seen on his talk page and on the talk page of my old bot. It Seems backward to me but other than a few discussion posts her and there I'm not editing much anymore. As for editing again, unfortunately, I wouldn't be able to use a bot again or run for admin and frankly I can't support WPUS anymore without those 2 things so its pointless to edit anymore anyway. I created the bot because I couldn't get anyone to do the tasks and then I couldn't do a lot of the tasks I needed to do to support the project because the "community" didn't trust me enough to give me admin rights and it frequently took several days to weeks to get some tasks done. Towards the end I didn't even bother leaving vandalism messages on talk pages anymore, I just reverted the change and moved on. Now everyone just thinks I have an attitude, am a vandal or whatever so like you said the "consensus" of the community, regardless of the comments here, indicate that my edits were not needed nor desired. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This was never, ever about Wikiproject US or scope or anything else. It was you and another editor reverting a tag three times, me telling you both to stop it, and then you not stopping it. Period. Full Stop. Every other issue you mention here has no bearing whatsoever on your block. None. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether you think or want to admit it this has always been about the projects scope. Thats how it started, thats why I reverted his vandalism and thats why his displays of article ownership will continue. You may have responded to my one edit but I was responding in that edit to years of ongoing antagonism, incivility and article ownership by Mark and others. I simply got tired of it and rather than continue to let them do it I stood up to them. Well thats what I get and the community gets them. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Dude, just calm down. Take a break for a while and then come back.ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I will. I'm certainly not doing any meaningful editing anymore. I'm just wasting a lot of time, just like I have for the last several years it seems. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

<--I reviewed the situation before I blocked you. My comments in the thread would indicate that. What you're missing is that none of those issues had anything to do with why you were blocked. Whether you were right or wrong, when you continued an edit war you totally sabotaged your point. And it went downhill from there. You were blocked exclusively because you continued an edit war. If you discuss the issue, and consensus comes out that you're right, great - you can proceed. But you couldn't wait, the tag had to be reverted RIGHT THEN, and that was that. I had no indication from you whatsoever that you were willing to stop edit warring and discuss the matter - indeed, you pledged to continue reverting. So you were blocked. I blocked you for a single day, rather than the week other admins were advocating, and I did so deliberately because the block wasn't to punish you - it was to stop you from edit warring. I invite you to rant as much as you wish on my talk page, if you find it useful - but my response isn't going to change. I strongly recommend that you log in to your account (since there is little purpose served in running around as an IP - unless you intend shenanigans, such as at VPP where you imply that you're not Kumioko when we all know that you are), have a beer (I'll Buy) and calm down. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 02:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

why don't you drop the stick ultraman. we understand you are not going to change, or admit a mistake. therefore the ip's will route around you, as you are an obstruction to the work of writing an encyclopedia. i strongly recommend not logging in, since there is little purpose editing under an account: all editors are treated to the same assumption of bad faith, baiting, and sanctimony. let's begin the insurgency of changing the toxic culture that is wikipedia: just as we had an arab spring, we can have a wiki spring. 96.238.65.34 (talk) 05:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

...what? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The VPP post I referenced was this one, but it makes more sense in the context of the later posts in that thread. It seemed like you were using Kumioko in the third person as if he were someone different, but that's clearly not what you were doing in context. No worries, and sorry for getting ahead of you. As for the rest - I'm serious about that beer. And when you do come back for realz, you will clearly be welcomed - see below. Best to you. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Er, that's because he *was* pretending to be someone else. Look above your last post here "(ec) Dude, just calm down...", or here on my talk where ShmuckatellieJoe pretends to be a new user. Or, using the IP for ShmuckatellieJoe where he claims "First, let me clarify here and now I am not the Kumioko user." - A lie. It's a veritable pity-party of sockpuppets: 138.162.8.58, 71.163.243.232, ShmuckatellieJoe & Kumioko... he's been a busy boy for someone who has "retired". Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

First let me say I am not Kumioko but even if I was so what. If it appears I am following the same edit pattern its because I sorta am. When I started, I talked to Acdixon and started helping with WikiProject Kentucky. I reviewed Kumioko's edits to see how to do certain things, mostly copy and paste style. I asked you a question about an edit you did I was confused about and judging by the discussion I responded in a much different way than Kumioko would have given your history, that I think I am starting to understand more of with this comment. Kumioko already said his ip was the 71.XX one and I already verified that the 138.XX is mine sorta, but its a proxy server used by half the navy (the other half uses 57 instead of 58. Thats a couple hundred thousand people. Just for the record and in a frank case of full disclosure I have met Kumioko. He is the one that encouraged me to start editing after a conversation we had about Medal of Honor recipients and their articles on Wikipedia. I have mostly tried to stay uninvolved and I think by reviewing my edits you'll see that other than asking folks to calm down a little. P.S. the 96 IP isn't him. Its someone else jumping in on the discussion. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you care to explain this "(formerly Kumioko)"? [8]? It looks to me Kumioko sometimes forgets which remote terminal he was posting from. This isn't the first time this has happened, either. Heck, you've asked Bgwhite how to retrive the old Kumioko pw... while pretending to be someone else. LOL! Hey, I'm sure you've met Kumioko... since you're the same person. If you regret "leaving", that's fine... but please stop this farce. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I asked BGwhite that question because I was curious and it had nothing to do with Kumioko. Do you really think Kumioko didn't already know? He even stated as such somewhere that he was told that there was a way to do a personal verification because a lot of people have met him in person and know him. I don't care if you think I am him and frankly I don't care if you block me. From what I have seen on your page you have been here for 6 years and your not an admin so it seems like you don't have the trust of the community so I see no reason to give credit to your accusations. I haven't done anything but try and make a few improvements. I have left a few comments, true, but I don't believe I have voted for anything nor have I gotten involved in the whole Kumioko thing other than to ask him and a couple of others to just calm down. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Come back!

Just about to send a new editor your way for information on Projects. Drat! You need a break! Thanks for all your help! Remember that no one kicks a dead dog! If you weren't doing anything before, you wouldn't have received any complaints! If our skins were as thick as they could be, we'd all run for public office! They don't have to be that thick to be an editor. But it helps! Enjoy your time off! Student7 (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

US banner

Knowing that this isn't likely to be a lot of help, I think the Template:WikiProject Biography includes, or at least included, some parameters which allowed the banner to show a subproject primarily on the banner at request. It may well be bloody hell to get to work for all the US subprojects, though. John Carter (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't understand what your trying to explain. Kumioko (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably because I don't make sense very often, so don't worry about it. You had asked some months ago at Template talk:WPBannerMeta#Question regarding Template:WikiProject United States about getting the US banner to display, for instance, the Arizona WikiProject in the bulk of the banner, with a "sub-banner" notice for WP United States. I seem to remember that the WikiProject Biography banner at least had some code which, if used correctly, made the banner appear on the article talk page as a template for the British Royalty WikiProject. I remember seeing the discussion about it earlier, and being told that it was extremely difficult to get the banner to appear like that. But, I don't know, it might be possible to check the banner's history and maybe do a number of basically small changes to get the banner to appear on the talk page as a template for the project for an individual state or region while still providing assessment for the US project as well. I regret I don't understand the technical details that well myself, so I'm using somewhat vague language, but I hope that makes a little sense. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem it makes sense now thanks for clarifying. Yes I agree that in a number of cases, such as the states, that would be a good thing. I have also asked about this but because of the way that the template is formatted its not really possible, at least not without a whole lot of custom coding. If you look at the Template:WikiProject Computing it also does some of this but the problem is that you have to duplicate all the logic for the entire template in both places due to the number of projects and parameters and that makes it a nightmare to maintain or make changes. Its possible that when WP starts using Lua to due some of the template parsers functions then it might be possible but its hard to say at this point. I do agree with this though and looked into it myself but it doesn't seem possible. Kumioko (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback

While I think this can be true, I think this largely depends on where and how you spend your time on Wikipedia. I've found that The Teahouse largely tries to combat this attitude.

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)