User talk:Buggie111/Archive 1

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you help?
I am interested in nominating the recently promoted FA, 1689 Boston revolt, to appear on the Main Page later this month or in the first week or so of January. I am confused with the process. Is there any way you could help me, when and if you have time?  DCI  talk 00:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure! Ask away. I'm a bit busy due to RL now, but next Friday and after is totally free. Buggie111 (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas for 2011
Buggie111,

Would like to say "Merry Christmas" for 2011! Hope you have a wonderful day and have good memories with family and friends. Adamdaley (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

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) 02:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Your RfA
Hi Buddgie. By withdrawing  the way  you  did, and acknowledging the opposers'  criticisms and taking  their advice on  board you  will  have earned more respect from  the community than you  are probably aware of, and people will  be looking  at  that  RfA  the next  time you  run. Work hard at  it, and when you  are really  ready  for adminship, I'll be happy  to  support you  next  time. My door is always open -  never hesitate to  drop  by  anytime you  want  some advice or just  a chat. Now relax and enjoy the rest of the holidays. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch.Buggie111 (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On your RfA page you proposed a good plan for developing yourself as an editor. I would love to see you make another request in the future.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   18:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. Your response was especially refreshing in light of some of the more bad faith and accusatory opposes I read on your RFA. Ever heard of "heaping burning coals on their heads"? ;) While I was unable to support you given some of the more serious opposes, I am now positive that you have exactly the right temperament for an administrator (definitely better than mine, as I can be somewhat abrasive), and will almost certainly support a future RFA. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope that you're not too discouraged by your RfA. Many of the 'oppose' comments seemed unfair, and most RfAs are conducted with greater decorum. Several of the questions you were asked to answer were also awkwardly worded and would have been difficult for a veteran admin to respond to. I hope that you stand again in a few months as I think that you'd make a good admin. In regards to responding to questions in a future RfA around the flexibility expected of admins, the best thing to remember is that admins are expected to step in and solve obvious and common problems quickly. As such, few admins do things like warn vandals four times before blocking - if an IP account keeps clearly vandalising articles after being warned once they can be blocked (and generally should be), and registered accounts whose first edit is vandalism tend to be blocked immediately as a vandalism-only account. That said, questions on this topic are difficult for RfA candidates to answer as new admins are expected to take a very conservative approach to using the tools until they become familiar with the role. Nick-D (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Discouraged? 'course not. Some of the opposes were, as you said, strange, but I'm not annoyed. I had a very solid feeling on the topic of less than four warnings, but I decided to play it safe. I'll be back in a year or so, nominated by someone else. Or I'll self-nom when the Cleveland Browns win the Super Bowl (which is about several centuries :) Buggie111 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, excellent. Following WP:AN is quite instructive about how admins go about things, and let me know if you have any questions about the admin role. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup
Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially begins at the start of 2012 (UTC) after which time you may begin to claim points. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Well, it's not a special project per se, but this is a rather large aviation project one user is running. He's really nice, I think you should go over and talk to him. About what you said below, nope, I'm not an admin, but some of them can be rather mean. I hope you have a good time here. Buggie111 (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup/History/2012/Submissions/Buggie111
I have removed the pages that you have added. Content cannot be claimed until it is actually promoted, and reviews cannot be claimed until the reviews are closed. Also, the featured list candidate would not be eligible, as the majority of the work was clearly done last year, and the good article reviews would be unlikely to be so because they are very short. While they are over the 1000 bytes line-in-the-sand, this is almost entirely from templates. I am not saying that these are poor reviews (I have not looked closely; I have no opinion), I am just saying that they are not eligible for points. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page or the WikiCup talk page. J Milburn (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sniffle. I thought it would be so. No problem. Buggie111 (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Luzon
Hello Buggy 111,

Are you online? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vjmath (talk • contribs) 17:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Buggy 111,

I see that you're online this afternoon. I'm not complaing about anything on Wiki really. My letter to you concerns a photo collection, a few letters and newspaper clippings from my father's service in Division 25 of the U.S. Army, mostly about the Battle of Luzon and the following push onward to Tokyo. I'd like to work with someone (any volunteers) in order to add more content to the Wiki article about Luzon. I have many forgotten photos and unpublished photos. My father was nominated for a Silver Star, received Purple Hearts and many items for bravery, above and beyond service, Commendations,etc. The war changed him forever. His personal stories are nightmare worthy. Finally after all these years, This long misplaced scrapbook backs up every one of the scant words he said over my lifetime. I would like to see these photo's and articles from the Army newspaper, other newspapers and his private collection used to expand the small articles on Wiki. Can we do this? Please let me know. Sincerely, [email redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vjmath (talk • contribs) 17:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Buggy 111,

I see that you're online this afternoon. I'm not complaing about anything on Wiki really. My letter to you concerns a photo collection, a few letters and newspaper clippings from my father's service in Division 25 of the U.S. Army, mostly about the Battle of Luzon and the following push onward to Tokyo. I'd like to work with someone (any volunteers) in order to add more content to the Wiki article about Luzon. I have many forgotten photos and unpublished photos. My father was nominated for a Silver Star, received Purple Hearts and many items for bravery, above and beyond service, Commendations,etc. The war changed him forever. His personal stories are nightmare worthy. Finally after all these years, This long misplaced scrapbook backs up every one of the scant words he said over my lifetime.The Wiki story doesn't tell much about the battle,it's facts are few and so very much is left out or barely exists at all on the webpage. I would like to see these photo's and articles from the Army newspaper, other newspapers and his private collection used to expand the small articles on Wiki. Can we do this? Please let me know. Sincerely, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vjmath (talk • contribs) 17:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not really in the realm of the Pacific War. Try asking at WT:MILHIST. Buggie111 (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1897)
G'day, I've been doing some copyediting on Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1897). If you get a chance, can you please check that you are happy with my edits. Feel free to revert anything you don't agree with. While working on it, though, I found some inconsistencies between the prose and the infobox. As I don't have any of the sources, I can't fix these. I will list them here and you can work on them if you think they are relevant:


 * the prose says: "Petropavlovsk displaced 11,854 long tons", but the infobox says "Displacement: 11,354 long tons (11,536 t)";
 * the prose says: "a mean draft of 25 feet 6 inches (7.8 m)", but the infobox says "Draft: 8.6 m (28 ft 3 in)"
 * the prose says: "beam of 70 feet (21.3 m)", but the infobox says "Beam: 21.3 m (69 ft 11 in)";
 * the prose says: "powered by 16 cylindrical coal-burning boilers", but the infobox says: "14 cylindrical coal-fired boilers";
 * the prose says: "range of 4,000 nautical miles (7,400 km; 4,600 mi)", but the infobox says: "	3,790 nmi (7,020 km)";
 * the prose says: "She had a crew of 632", but the infobox says: "Complement: 662";
 * the prose says: "four 12-inch (305 mm) guns", but the infobox says: "4 × 12 in (300 mm) guns" (5 mm out);
 * the prose says: "twelve 6-inch (152 mm) guns", but the infobox says: "12 × 6 in (150 mm) guns" (2 mm out).

Otherwise the article looks good to me. Keep up the good work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your edits all look good. Thanks for copyediting. Buggie111 (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. There is a query on my talk page about the year of publication for the Gribovskij work. Do you happen to know this at all? Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find it on any searches, although this search seems to indicate that the page number is 49. If you can confirm this, it should probably be added. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. It was jsut a leftover ref from pre-rewrite days. I think I remember adding 49 to the page list. Buggie111 (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've looked around and I can't. Probably 1991, year of foundation for the publishing house, but won't guess. Buggie111 (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for looking. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

removing users comments
Hi I see you removed one of my comments on ANI. I just wanted to give a comment about that. Your edit summary appeared to suggest you thought I was not talking about the user in question - to clarify that, I was. The thing to do imo would have been to ask on my talkpage if I was in the correct thread and asked me to remove it if I wasn't. Sometimes a removal of someones post is warranted, a bit off topic and a forum post, I suggest if you remove someones post you leave them a message on their talkpage telling them why you did it is a good idea, as the removal of someone else's post can as I have seen often cause more disruption than the post itself. Regards - 14:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Youreallycan (talk)
 * Just glancing through your talk :P. Sorry, I read and thought I saw a comment wihcich looked like it started with I instead of "he",e and thus assumed you had edited the wrong section. Apologies. Buggie111 (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah OK. No worries. Communication is the key is such situations. Thanks for your reply, regards. - Youreallycan (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1897)
The article Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1897) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1897) for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of List of Houston Texans Pro Bowlers
Hello! Your submission of List of Houston Texans Pro Bowlers 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! Miyagawa  (talk)  17:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As a curtesy
...I thought I would let you know that I mentioned your name here in relation to a friendly suggestion on a course of action for our new editor. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ambassador
Hi Buggie111,

I'm an instructor of English composition looking for an online ambassador to assist my Writing & Rhetoric II class this coming (Winter quarter). I'm specifically interested in someone who would be willing to respond to short proposals written by students for planned edits/article creations. There's a cap of twenty students in the class, so if I found two willing ambassadors each would be responsible for responding to 10 proposals. Would you be interested?

Thanks,

Matthewvetter (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure! As I see it, I'll be reviewing ten article creation requests by students, and will then be giving feedback and/or creating them (moving them over to mainspace). all correct, or am I missing something? Buggie111 (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Great Buggie! Well-Actually, I'm giving students the option to edit an existing article OR create a new article. So you would be reviewing proposals for new articles or changes/additions to existing articles. Make sense?

Matthewvetter (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Got it! Buggie111 (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Terrific! I'll get you a more precise schedule of when you can expect to hear from students tomorrow. Would you prefer that in an e-mail? Matthewvetter (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fine either way. Buggie111 (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help Buggie. You can view the course timeline at the the course page but what I would like the two ambassadors to do is respond to student proposals. These would basically be plans and questions before any editing/article creation is done. The deadline for these is Jan. 16, so expect 10 of these on or a few hours before that date. If you could, I'd like students to receive responses within 3 days, though I can work something out if that's not possible. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewvetter (talk • contribs) 16:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. I've set up a section at the top of my page for students to post their drafts in so as I can keep them all in one place. As I'm also a student, the worst case is that the drafts will be done by Friday 21. Buggie111 (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Buggie, We've had to push back the project a little. I'm now asking students to post to your talk page by 1/23. Still game? I like the section you've created for students. Thanks for your help with the project.

Matthewvetter (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, thanks for the info. Buggie111 (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

WT:MHC
Hi Buggie, you offered to help with this back in December ... could you do a quick check of the math and assign the awards, please? - Dank (push to talk) 14:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "September–December": October–December - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Crap. +45 more edits. Buggie111 (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the mil-hist reviewer recognition. I hope to do more in 2012, particularly at WP:PR. Finetooth (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)