User talk:Aiken drum/Archive 3

Thank you
Thank you very much for your kind words and support in your voter guide, as well as for your other thoughtful observations. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello
I really like your username. --Dweller (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'd prefer it to have a capital D but we can't have everything. AD 14:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Expand
Template:Expand has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi :)
Hey, I think I get what the confusion is. Although I reverted your edit, I've included the correction as you perhaps were alluding to i not being equal to !. Best.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  09:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. I think we should just stick with "vote" because "!vote" is a nonsensical term when we have tallies and numbered comments. AD 10:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You may be wrong out here. You could again read WP:Requests for adminship, where you could perhaps search for the term 'vote'. It'll lead you directly to the point where it is mentioned that the tally is for an !vote and not a vote. This is just a good faith request Aiken. I'll be grateful if you would not change words that I have written; as I do not wish your change to misrepresent my comments. Feel free to use the term 'vote' in your comments, but kindly do not change my comments. And please please please don't mind this message. See you around.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  11:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm wrong. I see nothing about the tally to referring to anything. Most mentions do not have the '!' prior to 'vote', only one where it says "it is sometimes referred to as a !vote". But if you don't want me to change your headers, that's fine. AD 12:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Best.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  12:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Chetham's School of Music
Hi, I watchlist GM articles and thought I'd do a bit of copyediting, hope you don't mind.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all, all the help the better imo. Thanks. AD 22:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Lists of minor Coronation Street characters
Thought this discussion might be of interest to you, would love your opinion. Ooh, Fruity  @  Ooh, Chatty  19:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

History of Cornell
Thank you for reviewing the article. Please let me know when you have comments and I will try to resolve them promptly. Racepacket (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Finished the review, see the talk page for comments. AD 15:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Finished addressing your comments. I hope we can wrap this up. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your further comments. I have asked you two questions on the review page. Racepacket (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could wrap this up? Racepacket (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Unwarranted edits to Hulme Hall School article
I am updating the Wikipedia article about Hulme Hall Grammar School and my edits are being reversed. I assume this is being done by some automated process you have installed. If this is the case then please remove this article from your settings and allow me to edit. If you are amending my edits personally then please stop - if you wish to discuss then contact me via this discussion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr C S Wood (talk • contribs) 12:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Rcsprinter123
Hello, Aiken drum!

I can't help noticing you seem to be writing to me a lot, and mostly negative comments; so I'm here to say sorry. But you see, I feel a need to have an article expressing the key bus routes in Derbyshire, and that is why I want one. Can't we wrap this up? I haven't gone into too much depth about each one, just describing the route, and would also like an article denoting that something is actually happening with these bus routes, not just sat there in a list, thanks to List of bus routes in Derbyshire.

Thank you though, for your praise on me writing the article about Chapel-en-le-Frith High School. I have researched this (thoroughly, not just some little mention in the paper) and felt that ought to justify an article too. I have also written it in userspace until it has been expanded enough to unleash to the world.

I am still a little bit haughty about the repeated deletion of Skyline 199. I'm sure the community, which includes almost half of Derbyshire, not to mention the bus company that runs it, Trent Barton, would be thrilled and proud to have their local bus route, hopper, on Wikipedia, for the whole world to see.

Maybe we could be friends, partners whatever the word on Wikipedia is; forget all this ever happened, the disputes and all...

So once again I send most sincere apologies.

RCSprinter123 (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * See, the problem is "I feel a need" isn't a reason to include a topic in Wikipedia. There really is no real, significant different between your idea and List of bus routes in Derbyshire, except yours arbitrarily picks some as "key" or "important", which is personal opinion, and we don't have that on Wikipedia per WP:NPOV. There are numerous notable routes which are deserving of their own article - ones covered in books, newspapers etc. The 199 route just doesn't have that kind of coverage, nor does the 358. On the other hand, look at Greater Manchester bus route 192 and all the references. That is the kind of route that deserves an article.
 * Well done again with the school article. Be sure to write it as neutrally as you can, and ensure you provide sources.
 * I think you miss the point of our project. Whether or not a community or company would be "thrilled" to have a route from their community on Wikipedia is irrelevant. We only put things that are covered in-depth by other third-party sources.
 * Thanks for your apology - if something doesn't go your way around here, it's not the end of the world. As for bus routes, the 199 and 358 would probably be most welcome on another wiki like this one, which is dedicated to that sort of thing.


 * AD 22:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I'd also like to say sorry to you for tagging your pages, I was just rather angry and behaved, as you put it childishly.RCSprinter123 (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Chetham's
I'm sure you'll notice from your watchlist, but I've started a GA review and left some comments / thoughts as I go. Regards, BencherliteTalk 22:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And it's passed, nice work. Regards, BencherliteTalk 17:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
There is a thread at WP:ANI concerning you. Nev1 (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. It's such a shame, as I'm sure he'd be a good editor if it weren't for the fact he doesn't seem to be able to work colaboratively, and abide by community discussions. AD 18:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perfect administrator material then. Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you. Good head on good shoulders. Appreciated. Pedro : Chat  22:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Keepscases
I saw you mention the possibility of proposing an RFA ban for Keepscases. In the spirit of keeping Wikipedia serious and not intimidating potential RFA candidates, I would be willing to get the ball rolling here, but what would be the best venue for approaching this. Kansan (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Great to hear. My first thought was RFA talk, but it has been discussed numerous times before, going back nearly four years (almost the entire time he's had an account):, , , , , , and an RFC (there are more threads, those are the ones that stand out). My suggestion would be to read them all, and see if we have anything new to bring to the table. Problem is, as you will see, some people bend over backwards to make disruptive editors welcome here - and have done for years. Keepscases is one of those editors who isn't disruptive, in that he damages the encyclopedia, but he damages the morale of people who tire of his irritating questions, and almost-SPA like agenda (more than half of his edits are to RFAs, and his last 50 article edits go back to March last year) is not really acceptable.
 * You have a tough job convincing those who believe "freedom of speech" for every random editor is more important than the integrity of RFA, which is already unpleasant enough. AD 17:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing more recent than those diffs that immediately came to mind was Newyorkbrad's comment on Snottywong's RFA where he basically told Keepsakes to cut it out. I then realized that NYB started a thread on Keepsakes's talk page, and I may be reading a bit into it, but I got the impression he wanted something there to be binding because of the allusion to having little regard for warnings. I suppose any action I take would probably be a little redundant for now until we see where that goes. Thanks. Kansan (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (Talk page stalker) As one of the major (or loudest mouthed, but  regular) proponents of change for the better at RfA, I'll have more opinion to  offer as soon  as my  own RfA is over,  in  the meantime, feel free to  use the info at RfA questions,  but  bear in mind however, that the silly  ones aren't  all from Keepscases, but  generally  most  of them, and the silliest  ones are. Kudpung (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

RfA
Hi Aiken, thank you  for commenting a couple of times  on my  RfA. I don't  think  you've actually cast a !vote yet, but whichever way you do, your comments and/or advice will of course be most  appreciated. --Kudpung (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right. While I often agree with what you have to say, around RFAs and such, your name does ring a bell in a less positive way. I think it's usually around discussions of teenage admins/editors, and your general negative opinion of them. While I can see where you're coming from, I think it unfair to consider all teens as a stereotype. This is especially true when we have some perfectly decent admins who are teenagers, who have never caused any problems, and at the same time we have some horrendously immature adults. I know that many people are of the same opinion as you, but like with RFA questions, I feel that you have sometimes become a bit of a broken record at RFA talk, not normally adding anything new, except another attack at teenagers with no real purpose. We are usually short of good admin candidates, and discussion about how teenagers are all emotional, immature and incapable aren't exactly welcoming for good teenage candidates (which there almost certainly are out there).
 * Other than this, I can't see much of a reason to oppose, but I'll wait a bit longer. AD 22:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Arhrahreheh
Please do not delete my revision this time. I will add a source in less than a minute. Jesus Christ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.212.111 (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC) -By the way, love the above link saying "assume good faith" - brilliant - I have just wasted 5 minutes of my life for the most ridiculous citation of something I thought would be useful for students to know. Cheers! 82.46.212.111 (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure that was just one, but I'll let you off for not adhering to your own ideals :) 82.46.212.111 (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Rcsprinter123
You don't like me very much, do you?

I've made a pledge not to review anymore GANs, or do any "bad" edits until this time next year. I'll just focus on writing articles in userspace, and then promoting them for a bit. I'm also going on a two week WikiBreak soon too. Userboxes can be misleading. Age. Sorry, Aiken drum.  Rcsprinter  Gimme a message  15:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't dislike you, I dislike it when you don't follow the rules. So you are going to continue the bad edits next year? AD 15:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, of course not! I mean I won't review any GANs until next year, or do any "bad" edits ever! I seem to have written it the wrong way.  Rcsprinter  Gimme a message  16:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only ‘’’5 minutes’’’ cooldenny (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Cause for Revelation
Any particular reason you removed !votes from Articles for deletion/Cause For Revelation? If it's just a slip of the finger, fine, but it might look like vandalism to others. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it was very intentional. A brief glance at the user's contributions is very revealing. AD 17:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for explaining! - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA
I was just thinking about potential candidates... have you considered running? I'm assuming you have noms in mind... I just wanted to suggest a run. ;)  ceran  thor 04:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd possibly run (again) maybe in the summer with more experience, but not right now. I don't have a massive amount of edits, nor am I the most active - not that it matters at all, but some think it does. Also while I have done extensive content work in the past, I haven't done any major stuff too recently. I vote at RFA quite a bit and the stuff that is expected is much more than I have. AD 12:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.  ceran  thor 14:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Invite WP:RFA2011
If you are concerned with the present situation at RfA and are interested in reform of the system, you are invited to contribute to the reform project  at  WP:RFA2011. If you have time and are inclined, you  may  also  wish  to  consider joining  the task force. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have time to join, but I read through the pages and it looks like you're all doing a good job with it :) AD 11:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have left a reply to your message on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

snakenath's RfA
Please close it per WP:NOTNOW if you haven't voted yet.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hacked article
I don't know how it worked, but I guess a Wikimedia sysadmin removed the offending image from the logo of that article's subject because I can't find it in the history of the file. I have requested indefinite semi-protection of the file and article.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I removed it from a template. The article and file don't need any protection. AD 16:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose the template does then.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It does, and I already requested protection. AD 16:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just curious, which template was it?Jasper Deng (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox Organization. AD 16:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Very clever of that vandal. Yet we were cleverer and now the vandal has been blocked and the offending content is revdeleted forever!!Jasper Deng (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Your input is requested
Greetings!

As a member of the RfA improvement task force, your input is requested at the possible proposals page, which consists of ideas that have not yet been discussed or developed.

Please look though the ideas and leave a comment on the talk page on the proposal(s) you would most like to see go forward. Your feedback will help decide which proposals to put to the community. And, as always, feel free to add new suggestions. Thanks!

Swarm, coordinator, RfA reform 2011

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

WP:RFA2011: RfA on other Wikipedias
A detailed table and notes have now been created and posted. It compares how RfA is carried out on   major Wikipedias (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish). If you feel  that other important language  Wikipedias should be added, please let  us know. This may however depend on  our/your language skills!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 22:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

Barnstar

 * This is unexpected - thank you very much! :) AD 17:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI
You recently opined here; this note is to advise you that this section has been closed in lieu of discussing each situation below the linked section individually. – xeno talk 16:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Main page RFC
Hello. Is there a reason why you haven't included Today's Featured List in this RFC? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, I was only looking at today's main page, forgot about that! I'll add it now. AD 19:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, only we're looking at expanding out to more than one day a week. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
Hi Aiken, I think you are misunderstanding my comments on WT:RFA. I'm not advocating a special cabal of reviewers for FAC; rather, I was pointing out that many non-FAC regulars do not review an article critically enough or do not post critical commentary with their supports. Thus, the closing FAC delegate will be unable to find a consensus in such an event. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

RfA Reform update
Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.

I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:
 * Have a look at the min requirement proposal and familiarise yourself with the statistics, I'd appreciate comment on where we should put the bar.
 * Any final comments would be appreciated on the clerks proposal.
 * Feedback on the two newer proposals - Pre-RfA & RfA reform 2011/Sysop on request. Both are more radical reforms of RfA and might run along side the current system.

Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

Commas
It is now common practice to avoid the commas in thousands in Britain. As a teacher I can confirm that we no longer use them as separators of 1000s and millions, 1000s of millions, billions etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felipito1.966 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)

The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to  these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.

A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising  the project  pages, researching  statistics and keeping  them  up  to  date. You'll also see for example that  we have recently  made tables to  compare how other Wikipedias choose  their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.

The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on  specific issues of our  admin  selection  process and to develop  RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that  all Wikipedia policy changes take a long  time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to  be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.

The object of WP:RFA2011 is not  to make it  either  easier or harder to  become an admin -  those criteria are set by  those who  !vote at  each  RfA. By providing  a unique venue for developing ideas for  change independent  of  the general discussion  at  WT:RFA, the project has two  clearly  defined goals: The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project  pages to  suggest  and discuss ideas that are not  strictly  within  the remit  of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they  will  offer maximum exposure to  the broader community, rather than individual  projects in  user space.
 * 1) Improving the environment  that  surrounds RfA in  order to  encourage mature, experienced editors of the right  calibre to  come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their  time to  admin  tasks.
 * 2) Discouraging, in the nicest  way  possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to  guide them towards the advice pages.

We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in  order to  build consensus.

New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.

Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any  editors are always welcome on  the project's various talk  pages. The main reasons  why  WT:RfA was never successful in  getting  anything  done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody  remembers them and where they  are hard to  find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on  the founder's talk  page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC).