User:RenamedUser jaskldjslak901/Archive42

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)

Requests for comment/F&aelig;
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:F&aelig;. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Admin Coaching
I see on the status page that you are looking for a coachee. I am a dedicated newpage patroller, and have always wanted to become an admin, but I feel that my lack of contribution to content is holding me back. I have trouble finding where I could write content, so I mainly do maintenance tasks. It seems, from the reading the RfAs, that the ability to do maintenance is lucrative, but that writing content, which is Wikipedia's core, is important as well. I would also like to become more involved with the community more, but don't know where to begin. I have always wanted to become an AfD contributer though :). If you can take me in and train me, I would appreciate it. Thanks.--Yutsi Talk/  Contributions  15:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: File:SHI.JPG
Hello Secret. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File:SHI.JPG, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''It is an image file, so F10 does not apply. WP:FFD is the way to go.''' Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Response
I haven't specifically been on Wikipedia's IRC Channel, but I am fairly experienced with IRC, as it's a safe haven for computer people like myself. I am of course willing to accept your offer as a coach, seeing that I was the one to request it. I've been editing Wikipedia for a while, and am getting serious about adminship now. Becoming a Wikipedia admin has been my dream from the start. Thanks for your help.--Yutsi Talk/  Contributions  15:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Typo?
In this you refer to "Sam Blackster". I assume you mean "Sam Blacketer" -- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  20:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wade Key
Thanks for the review, I'll expand the article per your suggestions.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Pres Mull
I've responded at the page, if you haven't noticed. – Connormah (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw it and it got approved. Secret account 23:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like I'm the unaware one here. Thanks! – Connormah (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Eric Hosmer
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup/History/2012/Submissions/Secret
Hi- I've removed the good article review from the page, as it is not yet eligible. You cannot claim points for a good article review until they are closed; see the review through to the end, and then you can claim. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem and the Fae RfC
Secret, in my opinion, your comments accusing others of having dubious reasons for engaging in dispute resolution ("some kind of agenda" and "disruptive trolls") I have listed in this section in relation to the Fae RfC constitute an ad hominem attack on the drafters of the RfC. Since ad hominem arguments attack the character of the person (in an attempt to damage the credibility of their message), I believe such debate tactics violate WP:NPA. Also, an ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy, and thus provides little help in addressing the validity of the issues raised in the statement of dispute. Please refrain from ad hominem arguments in the future. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have raised the issue of this "warning", which Cla68 is spamming to multiple editors, at Administrators' noticeboard. Please feel free to comment on this issue on that page. Prioryman (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Prioryman thanks, that isn't a personal attack, and I just said that comment in general, not on any specific editor. Thanks Secret account 21:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

List of animals with fraudulent diplomas
Your rv was correct, but the original edit was not in good faith - it had been tried before. Good catch. --Lexein (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

DGG page move
Thanks. I was just checking which CSD rationale to use when you did it. - Sitush (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

RE: Selena
Hey do you want to work on the article together in a sandbox? Best, Jona yo!  Selena 4 ever  00:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for your support at my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

On implications
I appreciate the thought behind the unblock conditions you proposed at AN, which I have no doubt were written in good faith, but I must admit that I'm a little pissed at the implication in #5 that, as one of the people who offered to mentor last time around, I'm not "knowledgeable [about] copyvio/plagiarism/fact checking concerns." I'm no Moonriddengirl (who is?) but I've pulled plenty of other people's copyright violations off this site. (I just wiped another one a couple of hours ago, in fact.) 28bytes (talk) 06:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Replied in your talk page. I meant WP:INVOLVED, which most of the mentors, with you being the exception clearly are. So I apologize if you were offended, and fixed AN. I'm sure most of the community wouldn't want people who had issues with Rlevse before to be the ones checking his content. It's not an issue of trust, as I trust everyone from both sides, but more of an solution to resolve potential concerns that an average editor looking at the discussion might have. The mentoring issues handpicked by Rlevse was one of main concerns in the last discussion about an unblock. Secret account 06:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I posted the new section below before seeing this. I'll add that I agree that 28bytes is the exception, but I see that's already been clarified, so no need to say more, other than that I'm slowing gaining experience in copyvio issues, I'm not involved with PS/Rlevse (AKAIK) and am willing to be part of a reviewing team.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Unblock
I read your proposed list of unblock conditions at AN with extreme interest, as I had begun drafting a set of unblock conditions myself. However, there are two timing issues. I did not post mine, because I concluded that the community wasn't quite ready, and it might be best if a few months elapsed first. I could be wrong on that, and it could be that the second timing issue help persuade me to wait: the second timing issue is that I expect to be very busy with off-wiki activities until 3 April, and thought that might be a good time to start. I'm extremely busy over the next couple days, so won't be able to justify contributing to the AN thread.

My list substantially overlaps yours, in many important respects. I agree re: mentors, but did want reviewers. I agree that the proposed "mentors" were problematic, not because I have any issues with any of them, bur because some were professed friends. I had some incomplete thoughts on DYK and FAC restrictions, so we are in broad agreement about the concept.

My own, personally selfish hope, is that the AN thread goes nowhere at the moment, and we revisit the issue in another month. I often don't get my wish :) so if the discussion does continue, I'll try to weigh in later, but I did want to chime in as a voice in support of an unblock with proper conditions, and a commitment to be part of the solution.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 February newsletter
Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was, again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was, thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were, , and. February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from. At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 00:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 11:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage newsletter
Hey all!

Thanks to everyone who attended our first office hours session; the logs can be found here, if you missed it, and we should be holding a second one on Thursday, 22 March 2012 at 18:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. I hope to see you all there :).

In the meantime, I have greatly expanded the details available at New Page Triage: there's a lot more info about precisely what we're planning. If you have ideas, and they aren't listed there, bring them up and I'll pass them on to the developers for consideration in the second sprint. And if you know anyone who might be interested in contributing, send them there too!

Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

help triage some feedback
Hey guys.

I appreciate this isn't quite what you signed up for, but I figured as people who are already pretty good at evaluating whether material is useful or not useful through Special:NewPages, you might be interested :). Over the last few months we've been developing the new Article Feedback Tool, which features a free text box. it is imperative that we work out in advance what proportion of feedback is useful or not so we can adjust the design accordingly and not overwhelm you with nonsense.

This is being done through the Feedback Evaluation System (FES), a tool that lets editors run through a stream of comments, selecting their value and viability, so we know what type of design should be promoted or avoided. We're about to start a new round of evaluations, beginning with an office hours session tomorrow at 18:00 UTC. If you'd like to help preemptively kill poor feedback, come along to #wikimedia-office and we'll show you how to use the tool. If you can't make it, send me an email at or drop a note on my talkpage, and I'm happy to give you a quick walkthrough in a one-on-one session :).

All the best, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

GAR links
Sorry for not noticing earlier, but you didn't add a link to the GAR from the Kirk Hinrich talk page (I have just done so now). It probably won't make a difference to the result, but it is good to give the article every chance of staying Good (it puts it into article alerts as well as appearing on interested parties watchlists). The easiest way to do this is to simply put at the top of the talk page and then choose either Community or Individual reassessment from the options. Regards AIR corn (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Eagles   24/7  (C)  01:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Curt Roberts
Hello! Your submission of Curt Roberts at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Ishtar456 (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * not a 5X expansion.

Thank you!
A very kind welcome indeed, and thank you for the cookies. Having rarely used these user talk pages, I suppose the first question I have would be "Where should I generally reply to other users?" You told me to ask my questions here, but it would seem logical to reply wherever the original post is. Could you please alleviate my confusion on this matter? The only other question I have is, well - not that it's not welcome or anything, but - I'm a bit confused as to how you "found" me. And why you? Why ME for that matter? Is there some sort of welcoming committee that roams the endless corridors of Wikipedia, seeking out and welcoming new users? Because I must say I find this quite unexpected! I visited the links you provided and learned quite a bit (particularly useful was the "five pillars" and the bit about the indentation-based reply branching), but I was not able to find a satisfactory answer to the above questions. Do let me know, and thanks again! :-)

- Smike (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * IRT User_talk:Smike: Well, thank you very much. I really did appreciate the welcome.  It sounds to me like you'd prefer me to reply to you on your talk page.  Would it be okay if I replied on MY talk page?  It seems to me that maintaining a discussion in a single location is ideal.  Am I missing something?  I must say, you've got me curious about the article you mentioned.  What was the article you were watching?  I suppose if there's anything in particular you'd like me to contribute towards further, let me know.  I have limited time, but I'd definitely consider it.  Oh, and I really appreciate the info you gave me on discussions and the Noticeboards, I was trying to make sense of all that and you summarized it well.  - Smike (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup/History/2012/Submissions/Secret
I'm afraid I've removed Talk:Reggaeton/GA2 from your submissions' page. No doubt a sensible close, but I'm afraid that quick-fails are not usually eligible for WikiCup points. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

RFA
Thanks for the vote of confidence! It is something I've been thinking about for a while; I'd definitely find the tools helpful during trade deadlines and summer free agency periods. I'm a little hesitant to open an RFA now, though. I just started a new job in the real world, so I've got enough stress! :) Maybe in a couple of months, though... Zagal e jo^^^ 00:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 March newsletter
We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! , of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's, thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's, who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

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

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Game (rapper)/GA2
It's been almost three weeks since you took on this good article review. Are you still planning on doing it, or should it be returned to the pool of GANs awaiting a reviewer? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a friendly reminder that this is still outstanding. Didn't want it to get too far down on the stack of things to do. Thanks for responding on my talk page. (You can respond here, too; I'll see it either way.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Alicia McCormack
Hi! I've been asked to help out on Alicia McCormack - in reading it, it seems like it really needs a good copyedit, which I'll try to do tomorrow. At the moment I'm a bit too exhausted to do it tonight, but if it is ok with you if I wait a day, I'll be bale to handle it within a day or so. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanx for the oversight
Hi Secret, First, I want to thank you for the oversight. I as you can probably tell, I am new to image uploading on Wikipedia. To complicate the matter, I actually have a limited background in information property law. This makes me somewhat "in between worlds" because I know how to make a moral, ethical, and legal case for an image, but I desperately need the help from someone like you to translate my legal knowledge into "wikipedia bureaucracy" knowledge so that Wikipedia (and you) and have confidence that the work I upload is, in fact, legal.

In the case of the Bill Lee Photo-- "Public Records" are records distributed by public agencies to the public. Copyight, let's remember, are not a "natural right", they are a Govt Granted monopoly in some limted cases, mostly involving artistic (not factual) works.

You are the "person in charge" of this part of Wikipedia-- image review. I firmly believe, as a religious & moral conviction, that a government agency cannot claim "ownership" over a public record like an publicly-distributed official portrait. But I need to your help to explain this to other Wikipedians. If you believe Wikipedia has the moral and legal right to distribute official portraits, help me fix the justification. I feel, legally, the image is PD, but a case could made that it's only fair use.

Since you raised the issue, I am going to entrust you to do the right thing. Maybe the image is PD, as I believe all official govt record are. Maybe you believe that Fair Use is a better justification. I entrust you with that decision.

Most of all, I trust you to make sure the image of the police chief remains on Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Racial issues are at play in that article, and the appearance of the chief of police is relevant to allegations of racial bias. I believe you are a trustworthy editor, and I trust that you will find the correct way to describe the need for the inclusion in the relevant articles.

Additionally, you should be aware of the personal consequences if we were to delete the image entirely. Race should not exist, but it does in US, FL. If the image is deleted, rather than justified, there will be a public backlash to WP's journalistic integrity. That weight sits on your shoulders-- whatever the legalize, NOTCENSORED applies. Please make sure an image of the Chief of Police remains available to the readers Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Legalizes can be debated indefinitely, but if we delete the image, Lawrence O'Donnell could be mentioning your real name as part of a "Wikipedia Whitewash". Let's not even invite that route.. --HectorMoffet (talk)

Thanks
Thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Don Kindt
Hi, I was just wondering why the last section is called "Notes" and not "References", do you have any objection to it being renamed?  Puffin  Let's talk! 13:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I see why you did it now.  Puffin  Let's talk! 16:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Don Kindt
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Don Kindt you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.  Puffin  Let's talk! 13:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is now on hold and when the minor changes are made, the article will pass.  Puffin  Let's talk! 16:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t &#124; c 21:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Talk:Alicia McCormack/GA1
Hi. thanks for your patience. I have addressed the concerns on Talk:Alicia McCormack/GA1. --LauraHale (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Curt Roberts
I have reviewed the article here and placed it on hold for the moment. Nice work, just a couple of things to clear up. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mike Shildt
Hello! Your submission of Mike Shildt at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Colorful Bling
Hi, I saw you removed a banned user. However, s/he is not banned on German Wikipedia, and the HighBeam accounts are for all language versions. What do you think? Ocaasit &#124; c 16:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh review!
I have posted a reply to your post here Talk:Bhagat_Singh/GA3. Best, --Tito Dutta Message 01:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Jim Umbricht
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Mike Shildt
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Eric Hosmer
I feel I have something invested in that article as its creator. Let me know if you need any specific help with the GAN. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 April newsletter
Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's  coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.

65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both and, the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article,  earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by  to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.

An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank and, for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Don Kindt
Hello! Your submission of Don Kindt at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- Will C  08:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, the issues I had were fixed. Oh and good luck in your pool in the WikiCup. I'm in pool B. I hope to stay around for round 4. Never got to round 3 before.-- Will C  21:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Don Kindt
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Vital articles trim
In general, good trim. I did leave a few comments about it on the VA/E talk page. Bit funny that 30 baseball players, but the leaders in K's and stolen bases weren't considered vital p  b  p  00:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage prototype released
Hey Secret! We've finally finished the NPT prototype and deployed it on enwiki. We'll be holding an office hours session on the 16th at 21:00 in #wikimedia-office to show it off, get feedback and plot future developments - hope to see you there! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Genre
Do you have references for your claim that "hip pop isn't a real genre"? Are you aware of the existence of the article Hip pop? According to that article it is better known as pop rap in the U.S. of A., I am not sure where you live but since you wrote on your userpage that you are interested in the history of American sports I thought that may be useful to mention. Arcandam (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have references for your claim that "hip pop is a vauge original research term"? The author of that video is not YouTube, it is AllHipHop, the world's most popular hip hop website. and AllHipHop interviewed KRS-ONE. Who is a more reliable source in the context of hiphop? Please see WP:Link rot. Arcandam (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You wrote "his known genre is hip hip" BTW, I assume you mean hip hop. Arcandam (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have proof for your accusation that my edit contained a "WP:BLP violation"? Arcandam (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to respond here? I've asked a few questions above and I gave you some information. You just revert. Arcandam (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't editwar, lets talk about it. Arcandam (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it is not unreasonable to assume you are not a fan of hiphop. Please see the whole video; KRS-ONE is not "dissing" him, he is praising him! He makes a statement about his topic of expertise, if you can find a better expert please post the URL. Arcandam (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Please listen to "Honest Expression" by Binary Star, they explain it clearly at the end of the song. Arcandam (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been ignoring you, I'm mostly busy because of work. In the end of the day basing that claim on only one person opinion, and using that source is a WP:BLP, WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE violation because that source is being used to change an entire genre because of one interview in which he is comparing two different rappers with two different styles. Maybe in the main body if Kanye had conflict with KRS-ONE and there is several reliable sources to back it up (and not just AllHipHop which is a borderline tabloid, they have some good, well-researched content, and some dubious content with suspicious sources, so it's a huge hit and miss) but not changing the genre to pop rap because of one opinion. You need to have Multiple reliable sources from several advantages. There's such thing as rappers with a pop appeal like Kayne is, but making it a whole genre is original research because there always been massive dispute what is considered "pop rap" between journalists, and the term mainly been used in a negative fashion (note pop rap is redirected to hip-hop). I know several of these journalists personally and they don't think of pop rap as a real appeal. And with the media he's an hip hop artist. I recommend to revert yourself because you did violate WP:3RR with the last source, and any further reverts may lead to a block. Thanks Secret account 22:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I think we have a big difference in timezone. Where I live it is time to go to bed for most people. If you are at work now we can have this discussion another time, if you want to. You seem to misunderstand what an editwar is. Please read WP:EDITWAR: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion". Until now you have been editwarring, I have not. You seem to think this is "just one persons opinion". It is not. According to WP:RS: "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context". Is my guess that you are not a fan of hiphop correct? I think hiphop fans in general are aware who KRS-ONE is, he is not a random person with an opinion, he is afaik the most reliable source for statements about hiphop. You can compare him to a doctor who was trained by Harvard medical school diagnosing a patient, that is not "just a random persons opinion", it is the opinion of an expert who has all the necessary credentials to be able to make such a claim. You seem to think that hip pop/pop rap is my invention, it is not, it really is a wellknown music genre, please see hip pop and Allmusic. That redirect is wrong, it should be changed, I can take care of that later. You claim pop rap has been mainly used as a negative term, do you have references to back that claim up? I am quite sure it is not true. Some artists self-identify as hip poppers, why would they do that if it is derogatory? Arcandam (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC) p.s. Please answer my questions above if you have some spare time. p.p.s. You seem to think (my impression, correct me if I am wrong) that KRS-ONE is insulting Kanye West and praising 50 Cent. He is not. He is praising both artists, Kanye more than 50, and he explains that Kanye's music is not hiphop. But he still likes it! p.p.p.s Nota bene: Allmusic has listed Kanye under "pop rap". I think we can agree that that is very similar to hip pop, but if you want to change the genre to pop rap that is OK with me. p.p.p.p.s Sorry if I am unclear or make mistakes, this is not my native language, feel free to ask any questions you may have.

Well the source is attacking Kanye that he isn't a rapper and saying he's only a pop artist on a six year old source, that is obviously a problematic source no matter whose the person discussing him and it shows complete disregard to WP:BLP and you already broke WP:3RR. I mentioned a few edit summaries that it isn't a reliable source and that pop rap is not really an genre. I was trying to discuss it with you, but you reverted me. Wikipedia does not go with a one person opinion. Yes he's a notable journalist and what he writes is reliable, but in the end of the day he doesn't control what the media says about hip hop nor its artists. Even AllMusic says that his genre is rap and r&b and that pop rap is a subgenre. If you could find a bunch of reliable media sources that shows a general consensus within the public that West is a "pop rap" artist, then I understand the addition, but not that source. Secret account 00:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I do not understand what you mean. Which source is attacking Kanye? KRS-ONE? Who says he isn't a rapper? Who says he's "only a pop artist"? Do you think KRS-ONE is a notable journalist??? Did you watch that video? Did you read the article about KRS-ONE? Admins who count like 1-2-3-block are incompetent, they will look at the circumstances; you have violated WP:EDITWAR and I have not. I tried to communicate, you did not. How can you still claim that pop rap is not really a genre? It obviously is. We have an article about it. I did not write that article. This is Wikipedia, it is not about voting, it is about reliability of sources. I have a reliable source (KRS-ONE). Do you know anyone with more expertise? Arcandam (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The YouTube source. KRS-ONE is a rapper also, but he's more known as a leading expert in the hip-hop culture, and journalism than his rap nowadays. I'm not saying that KRS-ONE isn't a reliable source himself, is that his opinion of a rap artist five years ago isn't a neutral nor reliable source in this context, and is a BLP violation because in the end of the day it's one person opinion that feels like Kayne isn't a real rapper unlike 50 Cent (and he discusses that in the 1.50 part of the video). And yes, while I do see KRS-ONE giving some praise for Kayne, he's clearly biased because he felt like Kayne wasn't following the typical urban culture that hip hop usually discusses, and it's very obvious if you study the video. Secret account 00:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you forgot to type two words (e.g. the problem) in the middle of the second sentence after the following quote: "I'm not saying that KRS-ONE isn't a reliable source himself". Arcandam (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to misunderstand what the word rapper means. You cannot use the words "rapper" and "hiphopper" interchangeably. Not everyone who raps is a part of hiphop. Rapping has been traced back to China, hundreds of years ago, when travelling poets competed rhythmically reciting poems they made, way before hiphop started. Do you have a reliable source for your claims that KRS-ONE is now a journalist, and is more wellknown for his work as a journalist and as a leading expert in the hip-hop culture than for his rapcareer? KRS-ONE is not saying that Kanye isn't a real rapper. Please watch the whole video again, from beginning to the end, because you are making many mistakes. You wrote: "And yes, while I do see KRS-ONE giving some praise for Kayne, he's clearly biased because he felt like Kayne wasn't following the typical urban culture that hip hop usually discusses, and it's very obvious if you study the video". I am sorry, I just have to ask this: did you make that up? It is complete nonsense. Arcandam (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC) p.s. Nota bene: KRS-ONE was asked to explain the 9 elements of hiphop at "The next level conference" at... Harvard! p.p.s. His name is Kanye BTW, not Kayne.


 * Excuse me, I made a mistake, our article about rapping says it is even older! Rapping can be traced back to its African roots. Centuries before hip hop music existed, the griots of West Africa were delivering stories rhythmically, over drums and sparse instrumentation. Such connections have been acknowledged by many modern artists, modern day "griots", spoken word artists, mainstream news sources, and academics.[12][13][14][15]. Arcandam (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this the problem?
I am not a native speaker, I hope you understand what I mean.

I think I understand the problem now. You misinterpret the reason why he pronounces the word "rapping" differently for Kanye and you seem to have made your own theory why because you are not familiar with these artists. In the movie listen to 1:29 - 1:41. He says: "50 cent, to me, did a rap album this year. He is rapping! Kanye... he is rapping".

I tried to use bold and cursive to indicate the way he pronounces it. Bold text is pronounced in a confident manner, the italic text is pronounced in a somewhat doubting voice.

You claimed the reason was: "And yes, while I do see KRS-ONE giving some praise for Kayne, he's clearly biased because he felt like Kayne wasn't following the typical urban culture that hip hop usually discusses, and it's very obvious if you study the video".

The real reason he pronounces the word rapping much more confidently when talking about 50 cent is that he is "just a rapper" on his own album. To oversimplify it: he spoke into a mic for a while, then other people produced his music. Sure, Kanye raps too, but he does so much more than that, he knows how to produce music too... and you can safely assume he spent a lot of time on that. With this album his focus is less on rapping and more on producing (compared to 50 Cent).

Do you understand why he pronounces the words differently now?

Arcandam (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am still kind of curious to see if this is correct. Would you be so kind to answer the question above? Arcandam (talk) 06:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You have my have permission to move this complete discussion to talk:Kanye West if you want to BTW. Arcandam (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Kanye West
Hi there. Since you're both established enough editors, I'll spare you the dramatic template and just let you know that you both are dancing on the edge of 3RR. The proper way to proceed is to have a discussion about the edit in question at Talk:Kanye West. Get uninvolved third parties to weigh in, etc.. You both know how it should work, so do it please. Cheers,  S ven M anguard   Wha?  23:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

RE: The AFD
Secret, you've removed comments that I made while the AFD was opened,  please don't do that as it violates WP:TPO. Further, the close is invalid. Consensus, in the form of WP:NOTDIR states that articles cannot be lists. Therefore,on the AFD page consensus must stay why that should be kept, and frankly, that isn't happening. About the only thing being said on this page is WP:NOTDIR is invalid (it's policy, so that's automatically false ) and a few attacks (I collapsed one by Postdlf) on the nominator. I'll boldly re-open the AFD. Yes, you can close the AFD if you agree, but let's not wipe my comments again.  KoshVorlon . Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj...   20:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again, you've removed comments I made while the AFD was open.  Do not do that again. This violates WP:TPO.

Per your note on my page:

Consensus did not decide to keep this article, as I explained, (let's not even talk about how this was quick closed against AFD guidelines )

You are also removing my comments which were made while the AFD was still open, which still violate WP:TPO.

 KoshVorlon . Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj...   20:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See my response to KoshVorlon here. postdlf (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. postdlf (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 May newsletter
We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is, whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader,, is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by, our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user,, claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Michael Jackson - Associated Acts
All the acts that are present in the info box have collaborated with him or either largely worked with him on his albums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJKingofMusic (talk • contribs) 23:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC) MJKingofMusic (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You offerred...
Can you do the merge and let me know when it's done ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Rollback edit
Hey, re this rollback, I thinK that just a normal undo or use of twinkle would of been better, because I don't think this goes under vandalism! Your views? Thanks! --Chip123456 (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It was test edits, in my watchlist apparently the page was blanked and unblanked (thus the rollback) but I don't usually warn them if it's just tests. Secret account 19:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that rollback is not used to revert test edits but if it said that the page was blanked, (bloody technology!)I can understand why you did it! --Chip123456 (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification
I have mentioned you at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence. If you wish to comment please take note of the guidelines at the top of the page and either the same page or Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop may be suitable. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Fæ (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)