User talk:Achowat/Archive 5

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you so much! I shall display it with great pride! Sodacan (talk) 08:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

PROD - Crest of Paris Saint-Germain F.C.
Hi there, you have PRODded this article, but not provided a reason why...please see WP:DEL-REASON. Regards, GiantSnowman 09:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why thank you! I also Prodded Colors of Paris Saint-Germain F.C., and must have Copy/Pasted the empty template instead of the filled-in one. Problem is solved now, thanks. Achowat (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks. GiantSnowman 12:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Fail
Fryede (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fryede (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:American Idiot (musical)/GA1 and WikiCup/History/2012/Submissions/Achowat
Hi; I'm afraid I don't think that this review is a particularly thorough one. The article is a long one, and there are plenty of issues that you could have commented upon. The critical discussion of the article in the review is extremely limited, and this lack is furthered by the fact that you did not make any edits to the article (I appreciate that it is not required, but I thought that heavy editing of the article may have accounted for your apparent lack of input on the review page). As such, and as per our rules on reviews, I am afraid I have removed it from your WikiCup submissions page. I am not challenging the result of the review, I have no opinion on that, but I do feel it could have been significantly more thorough. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks for understanding. J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 02:43, 31 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 23:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
00:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ceedjee & company
Noisetier/Alithien/Ceedjee and the IP whose edit you reversed are one and the same. This user also appears every day with a different IP to edit the same articles, delete additions or changes, and leave a variety of uncivil edit summaries and talk page comments. He has been inserting the same material, from the same sources, to a more or less fixed set of articles, for years. After many incidents of edit-warring and several bans and blocks, and the threat of an indefinite block, he reached an agreement with administrators that he would "retire" from English Wikipedia and only edit on French Wikipedia. After disappearing for a while, he has returned with a vengeance, going back to all his old haunts and baiting people into edit wars. This "miscellaneous" page I proposed for deletion contains French and poorly translated material held there for no purpose that I can discern, as his 3 sockpuppet identities have declared themselves either retired or semi-retired. Is it permissible for someone to have 3 different identities to edit the same articles and then use IP accounts to edit contentiously and badmouth other editors?--Geewhiz (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, those actions are not acceptable, however, the correct course of action would be to take your issues to the Admin Noticeboards and the like in regards to Sockpuppetry and user behavior. As it stands, the draft you MfD'd looks like a French transwiki draft that needs translation. I am unfamiliar with the User's history and therefore can only assume that that is a good-faith draft. If it can be demonstrated that the user is not acting in good faith, then the issue can be re-evaluated, but as it stands the user is not under an active block and the draft seems acceptable under WP:UP. Cheers! Achowat (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

RE: WP:WPPP
Thanks for the welcome! I just saw it on a page and thought i'd sign up to help. Most of my experience just comes from watching BBC Parliament but while I'm doing that I learn about it all, and so by now i can probably contribute a bit! :) See you around! Joshua Lee talk softly, please 14:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Why ... that's so kind of you. Many thanks. It is so rare to -- after having a difference of opinion -- receive such a compliment from the one with whom you disagreed. It says, I think, far more about the person giving the barnstar than the person receiving it. I look forward to working with you again--we have so many editors who think the goal is to be as unpleasant as possible, that it is a great pleasure to meet one who has the opposite goal. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've always seen myself, when it comes to policy, at least, in the role of Crossing Guard moreso than anything else. The way I see it, when I started using Wikipedia, it worked. The policies and guidelines that already exist are good enough for me, no need to re-invent the wheel. In MFD discussion (because I want nothing to do with that hornet's nest at AfD {) I just like to remind !voters and the closing Admin what my understanding of the policies is. And yes, WP:CIV is the most important for me. We can have content disagreements or think this guideline or that process is too lenient or restrictive, but as long as we all come to the table with the two ideas: That our goal is to build an encyclopedia and that all other editors are here for the same purpose. Your kind words mean more to me than any template I could leave on your talk; for that, I thank you. Cheers! Achowat (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We need more with your attitude. Our success will be measured by our ability to encourage such attitudes.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you very much. Achowat (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you
You're at the Revere public library and saw me on Wikipedia and then decided to barnstar me? That's only creepy in that you didn't come introduce yourself. Well, happy editing. Achowat (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Input request
You have contributed to article The Maxwell Show. This article is currently being considered for deletion. Please consider providing input at the article's discussion page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Maxwell_Show_(2nd_nomination). Levdr1 lostpassword ( talk ) 04:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for your interesting question, the second chance and your kind words in support of my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:MFD is near to my heart, and you had indicated a a desire to work in XfD so I wanted to test your ability in regards to, probably, the hardest User-space MfD issues. And you passed my test with flying colours. We need more experienced hands in the un-sexy (for lack of a better term) Admin tasks (like non-AFD XfD). You'll do well with the mop, now get to work and do us proud {. Achowat (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was trying to finish my thank-yous first, but somebody who had notched up 4 warnings had to go and vandalise a page on my watchlist... so I've got the mop wet already! As for XfD, I'm more into CfD but you never know... – Fayenatic L  (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)