User talk:Stifle/Archive 12
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Stifle. 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. |
The Signpost: 02 January 2012
- Interview: The Gardner interview
- News and notes: Things bubbling along as Wikimedians enjoy their holidays
- WikiProject report: Where are they now? Part III
- Featured content: Ghosts of featured content past, present, and future
- Arbitration report: New case accepted, four open cases, terms begin for new arbitrators
The Signpost: 09 January 2012
- Technological roadmap: 2011's technological achievements in review, and what 2012 may hold
- News and notes: Fundraiser 2011 ends with a bang
- WikiProject report: From Traditional to Experimental: WikiProject Jazz
- Featured content: Contentious FAC debate: a week in review
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Betacommand 3
The Signpost: 16 January 2012
- Special report: English Wikipedia to go dark on January 18
- Sister projects: What are our sisters up to now?
- News and notes: WMF on the looming SOPA blackout, Wikipedia turns 11, and Commons passes 12 million files
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Beer
- Featured content: Lecen on systemic bias in featured content
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, Betacommand case deadlocked, Muhammad images close near
Hi, I've never come across your name at AE, certainly not in the context of an ARBPIA-related report. Are you familiar with WP:ARBPIA#Editors_reminded? I could of course be wrong, but it sounds as though you may not have read the Remedy formulated there. It specifically enjoins editors to assume good faith, write with a neutral point of view, remain civil, and avoid personal attacks. I don't see how any of the comments Unomi directed at me can possible not be considered blatant breaches of what #Editors_reminded considers appropriate behavior. Can you elaborate, here or at AE, just how you feel Unomi's attacks are consistent with #Editors_reminded?—Biosketch (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Just because you open an SPI case, which only merit is its questionable entertainment value, doesn't mean that WP:SPI automatically classifies as ARBPIA territory. I would suggest that you reconsider the words you have chosen on AE, I can assure you that I find nothing "cunning" about casting aspersions of that nature. Please find somewhere else to indulge in your victimization fantasies. That you would file an SPI based on use of exclamation marks and smileys ( which happen to exhibit markedly different styles ) is disturbing and sad, if you weren't doing such a great job of displaying the frailty of your connection to reality I might have considered taking formal action against you for employing such disruptive attempts at gaming the system. un☯mi 12:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, the message I was trying to convey to User:Stifle, the validity of which your comment above has helped establish, is that your approach to editors with whom you have disagreements is hostile and aggressive and altogether inconsistent with the spirit of this project. There'd be no reason for you to take the SPI as personally as you have if you were as convinced of its futility as you claim you are. The vindictive anti-Zionist outbursts you attacked me with mean you lack the capacity to assume good faith, write with a neutral point of view, remain civil, and avoid personal attacks. Had your attacks been unrelated to the I/P conflict, I'd probably have ignored them as meaningless; but your sinister association of me with the negative stereotypes you believe to apply to Zionists both makes the attacks pertinent to ARBPIA and, in my opinion, makes them sanctionable.—Biosketch (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I have sanctioned users under ARBPIA, which you would have noticed if you searched WP:ARBPIA for my name. I expressed my opinion at WP:AE that the comments reach the level of a breach of the letter of the ruling, but not one that would occasion a sanction greater than an admonishment. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'll acknowledge that, I don't really have the desire to spend much further time on this, but should someone take Biosketch to task for the rather appalling misrepresentation of what I have written and offensive, to put it lightly, attribution of beliefs to me, then I would find it welcome. un☯mi 14:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Unomi, if you specify which beliefs I've attributed to you unfairly, I'll be more than happy to know you dissociate yourself from them and to withdraw the attribution of them to you. What I don't understand is your resistance to retracting the one comment I objected to on your Talk page, which was the catalyst for all this.—Biosketch (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should take the time to re-read it. I wrote that within the "Pro-Zionist Brigade" ( a pretty clear indicator of sardonic humor ) there could be found a high degree of self-deception. I don't see why I should retract it WHEN YOU SO VERY CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY ARE MAKING THAT VERY CASE FOR ME, YOU
NUTJOBperson acting in a manner that I find indistinguishable from that which I associate with nutjobs. un☯mi 14:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should take the time to re-read it. I wrote that within the "Pro-Zionist Brigade" ( a pretty clear indicator of sardonic humor ) there could be found a high degree of self-deception. I don't see why I should retract it WHEN YOU SO VERY CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY ARE MAKING THAT VERY CASE FOR ME, YOU
- Unomi, if you specify which beliefs I've attributed to you unfairly, I'll be more than happy to know you dissociate yourself from them and to withdraw the attribution of them to you. What I don't understand is your resistance to retracting the one comment I objected to on your Talk page, which was the catalyst for all this.—Biosketch (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Gentlemen, please take your dispute off my talk page. Stifle (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'll acknowledge that, I don't really have the desire to spend much further time on this, but should someone take Biosketch to task for the rather appalling misrepresentation of what I have written and offensive, to put it lightly, attribution of beliefs to me, then I would find it welcome. un☯mi 14:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
You forgot to add OTRS tag to [[:File:Catalog back page.JPG]. Can you please do that? --Sreejith K (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I did not forget; rather, it was not appropriate that one should be added. The OTRS discussion did not lead to the grant of permission (because the author could not be found). The only claim to PD status is that given on the page. If you wish to nominate it for deletion because of this, you are free to do so. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Stifle. I was wondering if you could have another look over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Celebrity Cricket League. It probably sounds arrogant considering that it was 4:1 in favour of deletion, but I really don't think there was a consensus to delete. I think I clearly showed that the tournament meets GNG (and CLUB, though I'm still not sure why that was used as a rationale), while the delete voters did not refute this and mainly used "just not notable"-type arguments. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- As per my /FAQs, I consider all my deletion decisions carefully before closing. I could not reasonably close that AFD as keep. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hallelujah
You placed two requests for citations on Hallelujah (Messiah Part II #44). Did you see the request on the talk for a separate article on the Hallelujah? BECAUSE it is so often performed by itself, and people don't know it is part of Messiah. For the "brilliant" please look up D major, the key of trumpet celebration, quote: "In the Baroque period, D major was regarded as "the key of glory"". Then remove the tags, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- It seems you've already removed the tags. I won't re-add them if you are so passionate about it. But I did know that one was part of the other. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 January 2012
- News and notes: SOPA blackout, Orange partnership
- WikiProject report: The Golden Horseshoe: WikiProject Toronto
- Featured content: Interview with Muhammad Mahdi Karim and the best of the week
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Muhammad images, AUSC call for applications
- Technology report: Looking ahead to MediaWiki 1.19 and related issues
That article should be deleted as well as it was moved during the creation of the Xbox 720 AfD.∞陣内Jinnai 17:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
DRV
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).
If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm just bringing this to your attention. While you deleted the article after the AFD debate was concluded, you left the page in place where the article was moved to. If the result was delete, doesn't that mean Queensland 1982 Airport robberies gets deleted? Someone moved the page after the deletion discussion started.- William 00:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Did you notice that a number of users rallied at an external mailing list have contributed to this discussion and carefully weighted the strengths of all arguments made? —Ruud 03:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Did you see my talk page FAQ? Specifically the second section. But yes, I did note that there was a number of new users, but there was not a consensus to delete taking all into account. Stifle (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't consider you FAQ to be relevant. This was at best a borderline case between delete and no consunsus, so I would have expected a closing rationale. Would you still care to add one? —Ruud 03:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- My FAQ points out that I carefully consider all closures and waive any requirement to discuss with me if you wish to raise a deletion review. I'm not trying to be obstructive, but I've already given you the rationale you were looking for and I don't see what adding it to the AFD page would do. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't consider you FAQ to be relevant. This was at best a borderline case between delete and no consunsus, so I would have expected a closing rationale. Would you still care to add one? —Ruud 03:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The article Household Name Records discography probably should have been included in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Household Name Records. Any chance you'd agree to delete discography as well?--GrapedApe (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Can't really do that as it wasn't explicitly included, but I've PRODded it. Stifle (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Georgetown University Alumni & Student Federal Credit Union
Just a heads up, I didn't notice Georgetown University Alumni & Student Federal Credit Union was up for AfD until you soft deleted it today, so I'm requesting undeletion, since I feel it has some notable qualities and high profile sources. Feel free to comment!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 19:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll work to shore up the article's notability this week.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 20:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 January 2012
- In the news: Zambian wiki-assassins, Foundation über alles, editor engagement and the innovation plateau
- Recent research: Language analyses examine power structure and political slant; Wikipedia compared to commercial databases
- WikiProject report: Digging Up WikiProject Palaeontology
- Featured content: Featured content soaring this week
- Arbitration report: Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases
- Technology report: Why "Lua" is on everybody's lips, and when to expect MediaWiki 1.19
Deletion review for Secure error messages in software systems
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Secure error messages in software systems. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Pnm (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Did I do anything wrong?
- Hello, Stifle
- Almost a month ago, I nominated these files for deletion but I must have done something wrong. I am unable to determine what.
- File:Consumerization Report 2011 - Chart 1.jpg
- File:Consumerization Report 2011 - Chart 2.jpg
- File:Consumerization Report 2011 - Chart 3.jpg
- Can you please take a look and tell me where I went wrong?
- Thanks in advance.
- Regards,
- Fleet Command (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- You haven't done anything wrong, but Commons is hopelessly short of sysops so the backlog on deletion requests is nearly three months. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Invitation
|
- I decline. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 February 2012
- News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors
- In the news: Leading scholar hails Wikipedia, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned
- Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts
- WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones
- Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure
Celebrity Cricket League
Hello,
Last year based on an AfD conclusion you have deleted the Celebrity Cricket League article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Celebrity_Cricket_League). Now the article was re-created and the current AfD decision is Keep. So, could you please merge back the contents from the earlier delteed article to this new article since I put lot of information about its launch and its first edition in that article.
Anish Viswa 01:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The previous history of the article can be found using the History function at the top of the page. You can find the previous versions there and merge them yourself. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 February 2012
- Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters
- News and notes: Foundation launches Legal and Community Advocacy department
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Stub Sorting
- Featured content: The best of the week
MSU Interview
Dear Stifle,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
- Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
- Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
- All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
- All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
- The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I do not think I am interested in this. Good luck with your process. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 February 2012
- Special report: The plight of the new page patrollers
- News and notes: Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering
- Discussion report: Discussion on copyrighted files from non-US relation states
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Poland
- Featured content: The best of the week
The Signpost: 27 February 2012
- News and notes: Finance meeting fallout, Gardner recommendations forthcoming
- Recent research: Gender gap and conflict aversion; collaboration on breaking news; effects of leadership on participation; legacy of Public Policy Initiative
- Discussion report: Focus on admin conduct and editor retention
- WikiProject report: Just don't call it "sci-fi": WikiProject Science Fiction
- Arbitration report: Final decision in TimidGuy ban appeal, one case remains open
- Technology report: 1.19 deployment stress, Meta debates whether to enforce SUL
The Signpost: 05 March 2012
- News and notes: Chapter-selected Board seats, an invite to the Teahouse, patrol becomes triage, and this week in history
- In the news: Heights reached in search rankings, privacy and mental health info; clouds remain over content policing
- Discussion report: COI and NOTCENSORED: policies under discussion
- WikiProject report: We don't bite: WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles
- Featured content: Best of the week
- Arbitration report: AUSC appointments announced, one case remains open
Happy Adminship Anniversary
- :) Thank you. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
A beer for you!
For Protecting the Serbia page so no non-registered users can edit. Thus greatly reducing vandalism. Thanks Bro :) MoravaiDrina (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC) |
Hello, Stifle. I’m new to Wikipedia, so I apologize if my questions are ignorant or if the answers could have been found elsewhere.
I would like to re-start a page for the “Midwest Bisexual Lesbian Gay Transgender Ally College Conference,” which was deleted in February 2009. I have spent quite a bit of time researching the conference and collecting dozens of links to - what I hope are - notable sources, which is what the entry seemed to lack when it was deleted. I hope to add a significant amount of content to the information that was contained in the previous version, as well as significant sourcing for that new content.
I was hoping you could tell me how I might go about this in the proper manner. Best, EricaShekell (talk) 23:15, 09 March 2012 (UTC)
- You are entitled to just recreate the article if you get over the reasons why it was deleted. Alternatively, I can userfy the deleted article for you, allowing you to work on it in your own time before moving it to mainspace when you are ready. Stifle (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Shavershian AFD
If the article's not worthy of being kept, why should you suggest otherwise because I've been initiating discussion on the merits against keeping it? At this point I'm glad you didn't close it because that would have been ripe for overturning at DRV.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't close it as keep because I knew that irrespective of what I wrote it would be dragged to DRV (and I suspect you will do so anyhow), and I didn't need the drama.
- There is a distinction between "initiating discussion" and "harassing and arguing with everyone who doesn't agree with you", and you were well into the latter territory. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 March 2012
- Interview: Liaising with the Education Program
- Women and Wikipedia: Women's history, what we're missing, and why it matters
- Arbitration analysis: A look at new arbitrators
- Discussion report: Nothing changes as long discussions continue
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Women's History
- Featured content: Extinct humans, birds, and Birdman
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision in 'Article titles', only one open case
- Education report: Diverse approaches to Wikipedia in Education
UTRS
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- approved. Welcome to the team, we will be sending users over to UTRS instead of unblock-en-l soon. The Helpful One 01:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
OTRS:6419858
I'm not entirely sure what an OTRS complaint is (I figure it's important), but how do I view it?--Львівське (говорити) 22:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- See WP:OTRS for information on what an OTRS complaint is. Unfortunately they cannot be viewed other than by privileged users. Stifle (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- So how do you recommend the article be fixed in the meantime? There's a dispute resolution and a BLP/N case open on it, the BLP went quiet and the DR was put on pause until the former got resolved, so things are sitting in limbo at the moment.--Львівське (говорити) 22:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- If the BLPN is stalled, then people should continue editing the article in accordance with BLP rules, in particular removing any sentence without a high-quality reference. Stifle (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- So how do you recommend the article be fixed in the meantime? There's a dispute resolution and a BLP/N case open on it, the BLP went quiet and the DR was put on pause until the former got resolved, so things are sitting in limbo at the moment.--Львівське (говорити) 22:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Kara Young AfD [1]
Hi Stifle, today I've cleaned up the article, removed unsourced content and more importanly added several new sources including the LA Times, NY Times, NY Post, Black Women in American History etc. Could you please have a second look and see how you feel about your keep/delete vote? Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Deletion of this article would be far from uncontroversial, so the prod has been removed. It does not fail WP:V, it just fails having any editors who actually work on it.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- I removed the PROD from this article, as deletion of this 6,000+ seat stadium would not be uncontroversial.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Use of a bot to mass prod articles
Shouldn't you take time to look at the articles before prodding them for deletion? You seemed to have gone through quite a number of them rather quickly. The start of the Dennis Miller Live article mentions all the notable awards the show has won, which would disqualify it for a prod. So you obviously aren't reading these things before tagging them. Dream Focus 04:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have not used a bot. I have opened old unreferenced categories in tabs, reviewing for articles that lack sources, and PRODding where it seems reasonable. WP:V places the burden of proof on those seeking to add or retain content. Thank you for referencing Dennis Miller Live. Stifle (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Prods of multiple articles
Hi Stifle. Just now I've added references and removed your Prod tags from Cantref Llŷn, Dancing on Ice (Netherlands and Belgium), Comedia (Spanish play), Equivalents of Duke outside Europe, and I, Max. Needless to say, I'm finding your rationale of Unreferenced for over five years, fails WP:V quite unimpressive. It seems weird that I need to come to your talk page to say this, but I'm hoping you're not planning to continue like this. It would be constructive if you did a quick search for sources; these were not hard to find. From what I've seen, the articles you're prodding do not look like hoaxes. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- There is a requirement that all Wikipedia articles be verifiable, and the policy states that the burden of finding sources lies on those seeking to retain or add the article. I never said anything was a hoax. Additionally, a lack of sources for over five years may point towards non-notability. Feel free to reference articles. Stifle (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. I am not "planning to continue like this", but every once in a while I do review various categories of articles for compliance with policies, and take appropriate action when they do not meet them. Stifle (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- P.P.S. On reflection, I probably overdid things. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks, Stifle. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 March 2012
- News and notes: Chapters Council proposals take form as research applications invited for Wikipedia Academy and HighBeam accounts
- Discussion report: Article Rescue Squadron in need of rescue yet again
- WikiProject report: Lessons from another Wikipedia: Czech WikiProject Protected Areas
- Featured content: Featured content on the upswing!
- Arbitration report: Race and intelligence 'review' opened, Article titles at voting
Talk page blanking
What was going through your mind when you did this? [2] You are supposed to add new sections at the bottom of the page and there is no way that you are authorized to just blank the whole page! There is important stuff on there that I want to take up with Ncboy2010, so I will restore the previous version and add all the recent notices back at the bottom. CaptainScreebo Parley! 12:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I really don't understand, you are an administrator to boot? CaptainScreebo Parley! 12:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry about that, I was trying to add a new section and I must have screwed it up. Please accept my apologies for this honest mistake. Stifle (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- No worries, this user needs keeping an eye on as they are going bananas with HotCat, doing a lot of rapid-fire editing and adding links all over the place to DABs, and not heeding the subsequent bot messages. See this section to see why I was a bit miffed to find that the page had disappeared. I accept that we all have stumbly fingers or hazy editing sessions ;-) All the best! CaptainScreebo Parley! 12:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
An AFD you participated in has been started again
I'm contacting everyone that participated in the last one, which ended earlier this month, to inform them of the new one. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aziz Shavershian (2nd nomination) Dream Focus 13:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 March 2012
- News and notes: Controversial content saga continues, while the Foundation tries to engage editors with merchandising and restructuring
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Rock Music
- Featured content: Malfunctioning sharks, toothcombs and a famous mother: featured content for the week
- Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review at evidence, article titles closed
- Recent research: Predicting admin elections; studying flagged revision debates; classifying editor interactions; and collecting the Wikipedia literature
- Education report: Universities unite for GLAM; and High Schools get their due.
Fake TAR
A while ago, I made fake The Amazing Race results pages on userpages. These were deleted. So, in the question of fairness, I'm requesting that the fake TAR results pages on User:TAR2C are deleted. Thank you! 70.68.97.58 (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 02 April 2012
- Interview: An introduction to movement roles
- Arbitration analysis: Case review: TimidGuy ban appeal
- News and notes: Berlin reforms to movement structures, Wikidata launches with fanfare, and Wikipedia's day of mischief
- WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Signpost
- Featured content: Snakes, misnamed chapels, and emptiness: featured content this week
- Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review in third week, one open case
Dispute resolution survey
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Stifle. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Are these allowed?
Most of these are fairly old drafts or copies of existing pages.
- User:Christianity922/The Amazing Race: Unfinished Business Test
- User:Christianity922/The Amazing Race 15 Test
- User:Christianity922/The Amazing Race 16 Test
- User:Christianity922/The Amazing Race 17 Test
- User:Christianity922/The Amazing Race 1 Test
- User:Christianity922/The Amazing Race 2 Test
- User:Christianity922/The Amazing Race 3 Test
- User:Christianity922/The Amazing Race 4 Test
- User:CrazyLegsKC/TAR5
- User:Kartoffel07/AmazingRaceTest
- User:Kartoffel07/sandbox
Shadow2 (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Probably should be MFDed. Stifle (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 April 2012
- News and notes: Projects launched in Brazil and the Middle East as advisors sought for funds committee
- WikiProject report: The Land of Steady Habits: WikiProject Connecticut
- Featured content: Assassination, genocide, internment, murder, and crucifixion: the bloodiest of the week
- Arbitration report: Arbitration evidence-limit motions, two open cases
The Signpost: 16 April 2012
- Arbitration analysis: Inside the Arbitration Committee Mailing List
- Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren
- Discussion report: The future of pending changes
- WikiProject report: The Butterflies and Moths of WikiProject Lepidoptera
- Featured content: A few good sports: association football, rugby league, and the Olympics vie for medals
FFD comment request
You were the image reviewer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Starvin' Marvin (South Park)/archive2 which was promoted to FA on 15 September 2009. This included a review of the infobox image File:Ep 109 starvinmarvin.gif. I am in a debate at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 April 15#File:Pilot .28The Cosby Show.29 monopoly lesson.png, which is a debate over the infobox image for a television episode. The reviewer believes that the image currently violates WP:NFCC. I was hoping you might weigh in on this debate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool
Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.
For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 April 2012
- Investigative report: Spin doctors spin Jimmy's "bright line"
- WikiProject report: Skeptics and Believers: WikiProject The X-Files
- Featured content: A mirror (or seventeen) on this week's featured content
- Arbitration report: Evidence submissions close in Rich Farmbrough case, vote on proposed decision in R&I Review
- Technology report: Wikimedia Labs: soon to be at the cutting edge of MediaWiki development?
Trinity College/University of Dublin
Hi there, I noticed you opened a discussion a couple of years ago proposing the merger of Trinity College, Dublin and University of Dublin; I've done so again as the two articles are, for all intents and purposes, the exact same. You may wish to give your opinion. Cheers --Schcamboaon scéal? 17:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 April 2012
- Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Consultant: Pete Forsyth
- Discussion report: 'ReferenceTooltips' by default
- WikiProject report: The Cartographers of WikiProject Maps
- Featured content: Featured content spreads its wings
- Arbitration report: R&I Review remains in voting, two open cases
The Signpost: 07 May 2012
- Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Communicator: Phil Gomes
- News and notes: Hong Kong to host Wikimania 2013
- WikiProject report: Say What?: WikiProject Languages
- Featured content: This week at featured content: How much wood would a Wood Duck chuck if a Wood Duck could chuck wood?
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision in Rich Farmbrough, two open cases
- Technology report: Search gets faster, GSoC gets more detail and 1.20wmf2 gets deployed
Hate to bother
I hate to bother you but there are only a handful of people who are familiar with the process. Can you have a look at THIS for me? Your help would be appreciated. It is related to a link for online-scratch-card to use in an article. Thanks. --Morning277 (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 May 2012
- WikiProject report: Welcome to Wikipedia with a cup of tea and all your questions answered - at the Teahouse
- Featured content: Featured content is red hot this week
- Arbitration report: R&I Review closed, Rich Farmbrough near closure
The Signpost: 21 May 2012
- From the editor: New editor-in-chief
- WikiProject report: Trouble in a Galaxy Far, Far Away....
- Featured content: Lemurbaby moves it with Madagascar: Featured content for the week
- Arbitration report: No open arbitration cases pending
- Technology report: On the indestructibility of Wikimedia content
The Signpost: 28 May 2012
- News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation endorses open-access petition to the White House; pending changes RfC ends
- Recent research: Supporting interlanguage collaboration; detecting reverts; Wikipedia's discourse, semantic and leadership networks, and Google's Knowledge Graph
- WikiProject report: Experts and enthusiasts at WikiProject Geology
- Featured content: Featured content cuts the cheese
- Arbitration report: Fæ and GoodDay requests for arbitration, changes to evidence word limits
- Technology report: Developer divide wrangles; plus Wikimedia Zero, MediaWiki 1.20wmf4, and IPv6
The Signpost: 04 June 2012
- Special report: WikiWomenCamp: From women, for women
- Discussion report: Watching Wikipedia change
- WikiProject report: Views of WikiProject Visual Arts
- Featured content: On the lochs
- Arbitration report: Two motions for procedural reform, three open cases, Rich Farmbrough risks block and ban
- Technology report: Report from the Berlin Hackathon
Jono lester
Many, many moons ago, you salted Jono Lester as a repeatedly created non-notable bio. It's back at Jono lester. It's has a WP:BLPPROD on it at the moment, one of those grey areas in that it does have a ref, but to his own website, so not reliable to our standards. I have no idea if his recent races have raised him up above the motorsport notability bar, but I thought I'd let you know if you want to deal with it, because it shouldn't stay at the incorrectly capitalised location. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for dropping me a note. I'll wait until the BLPPROD expires or is properly removed and see from there. Stifle (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 June 2012
- News and notes: Foundation finance reformers wrestle with CoI
- WikiProject report: Counter-Vandalism Unit
- Featured content: The cake is a pi
- Arbitration report: Procedural reform enacted, Rich Farmbrough blocked, three open cases
You closed the last AfD on this guy as a redirect; it's been recreated again
Patrick Murray (politician) is back. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 June 2012
- Investigative report: Is the requests for adminship process 'broken'?
- News and notes: Ground shifts while chapters dither over new Association
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- WikiProject report: The Punks of Wikipedia
- Featured content: Taken with a pinch of "salt"
- Arbitration report: Three open cases, GoodDay case closed
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 25 June 2012
- WikiProject report: Summer Sports Series: WikiProject Athletics
- Featured content: A good week for the Williams
- Arbitration report: Three open cases
- Technology report: Second Visual Editor prototype launches
The Signpost: 02 July 2012
- Analysis: Uncovering scientific plagiarism
- News and notes: RfC on joining lobby group; JSTOR accounts for Wikipedians and the article feedback tool
- In the news: Public relations on Wikipedia: friend or foe?
- Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations
- WikiProject report: Summer sports series: Burning rubber with WikiProject Motorsport
- Featured content: Heads up
- Arbitration report: Three open cases, motion for the removal of Carnildo's administrative tools
- Technology report: Initialisms abound: QA and HTML5
The Signpost: 09 July 2012
- Special report: Reforming the education programs: lessons from Cairo
- WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Football
- Featured content: Keeps on chuggin'
- Arbitration report: Three requests for arbitration
The Signpost: 16 July 2012
- Special report: Chapters Association mired in controversy over new chair
- WikiProject report: Summer sports series: French WikiProject Cycling
- Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations
- Featured content: Taking flight
- Technology report: Tech talks at Wikimania amid news of a mixed June
- Arbitration report: Fæ faces site-ban, proposed decisions posted
The Signpost: 23 July 2012
- Paid editing: Does Wikipedia pay? The skeptic: Orange Mike
- From the editor: Signpost developments
- WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Olympics
- Arbitration report: Fæ and Michaeldsuarez banned; Kwamikagami desysopped; Falun Gong closes with mandated external reviews and topic bans
- Featured content: When is an island not an island?
- Technology report: Translating SVGs and making history bugs history
As someone who commented on the first AfD I am informing you that the article is up for deletion again. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 July 2012
- News and notes: Wikimedians and London 2012; WMF budget – staffing, engineering, editor retention effort, and the global South; Telegraph's cheap shot at WP
- WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Horse Racing
- Featured content: One of a kind
- Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases
The Signpost: 06 August 2012
- News and notes: FDC portal launched
- Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases
- Featured content: Casliber's words take root
- Technology report: Wikidata nears first deployment but wikis go down in fibre cut calamity
- WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Martial Arts
The Signpost: 13 August 2012
- Op-ed: Small Wikipedias' burden
- Arbitration report: You really can request for arbitration
- Featured content: On the road again
- Technology report: "Phabricating" a serious alternative to Gerrit
- WikiProject report: Dispute Resolution
- Discussion report: Image placeholders, machine translations, Mediation Committee, de-adminship
FYI
The main conversation regarding Wikipedia:Contact us/draft1 and related pages is centralized at Wikipedia talk:Contact us, so I don't know how many people will see your comment where it is now. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
For all your hard work, contributions and administration of the Wikipedia project in the MediaWiki namespace. Cheers. --Hu12 (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC) |
- Thank you! Stifle (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Holiday cheer
Holiday Cheer | ||
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be a newbie, a good friend, someone you have had disagreements with in the past, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS |