User talk:Cptnono/Archive 6

Sexuality barnstar

 * Hello. Having noticed all your work on various sexuality articles, I thought just drop you a note of thanks.  I'm pretty busy in real life and with other Wiki projects so don't work on many articles within the scope of WP:SEX these days, but it is good to see work is on-going.  Cheers. -- Surv1v4l1st (Talk  14:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! One of the reasons I first got into editing was to create a page for my roommate's favorite internet girl. Didn't work out but I still enjoy the topic area. It is kind of cool to see subjects that are so taboo get sourcing and images.Cptnono (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned about you
I saw the AE thing and I have to say that three hours seems a bit lenient to me. I think you dodged a bullet there. But you admitted that what you did was wrong so I'm sure you know that. But I am worried about you because I remember when I first met you at Gaza War that you were one of the most neutral, civil and conciliatory editors there. It took me like a week to figure out which side of the fence you were on. That's a lot more than it usually takes. Actually I recall that I had trouble remembering which on was Cptnono and which was Cryptonio. I don't know what happened but I was away from WP over the summer and you seem to have got caught up in all the I/P bullshit and I think your editing is suffering for it. If I thought you were just another one of the I/P jerks it wouldn't really matter. But I remember when you were an exemplary editor here and I think you could be again. Maybe I'm wrong but I get the sense that in real life you're probably a decent guy too. To be honest your recent trajectory reminds me of Cryptonio and I don't want to see you end up like him. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely appreciated. See my response at User talk:Cptnono/Archive 5. I think it is out of my system now! I was seriously livid at seeing editors repeatedly disregard guidelines and policies and figured I would do the same. Not really as fun as I originally thought it would be.Cptnono (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Cptnono having read any of the problems you been having but got to agree with JGG. I really respect you as a great editor. Looking forward to seeing the old Cptnono again :-) Bjmullan (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Time of year to give Thanks

 * Wow. Thank you so much. Makes me feel bad for being so uncivil in a couple topic areas lately. Thank you for the reminder on how working with the community can be a great thing.Cptnono (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well deserved, Wear It With Pride ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, Cptnono. I've always enjoyed working with you and find you to be a civil and fine fellow.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not always, unfortunately. But I cannot not tell you how much I appreciate the reminder to endeavor to get back to that type of editing.Cptnono (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously pissed off
You, an experienced editor, who openly professes racist attitudes, who hypocritically claims "I don't give a shit about Israel or Palestine" when any fool can see from your editing record that much of your non trivial output has been directed at pro Israeli editing, You who openly calls people pricks and tell them to “fuck off” get a three hour editing ban. I, and inexperienced editor get an indefinite (potentially lifetime) ban on editing on Israel Palestine topics for (out of ignorance of the system) breaching procedural rules. What a joke.Prunesqualer (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you were nicer about it you probably could appeal your decision but it is doubtful there would be any support with your attitude. I would support such an appeal if you removed the garbage on your talk page, showed just a little bit of editing throughout the project instead of whining, and based it on "ignorance of the system".
 * And I do understand your frustration. Why do you think I have been such a jerk lately? Several editors have continued to do whatever they want with no repercussions and I decided to join their ranks. To be honest, I didn't like it nearly as much as I thought I would and am going to try to do a little better. But if you continue to assert that I am a racist, misrepresent my editing history (have you worked on any GAs or FAs?), and misrepresent my comments on you talk page while doing nothing but complaining then you are just as bad as anyone else here. Please consider my suggestion about the appeal above but knock this stuff off. Good thing I just got that three hour block because I really would love to be a raging jerk to you right now. Best of luck.Cptnono (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If I where nicer about it eg like you, repeatedly calling for sanctions against people, calling people “pricks” or telling them to “fuck of” you mean? Prunesqualer (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wasn't appropriate but I can only feel so bad about it. I told Nableezy I was going to act as disruptive as he did and went for it. It is done now so you can start looking at yourself or enjoy your indefinite block.Cptnono (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

And where do you suggest I start looking at myself? Prunesqualer (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See above where I point to a scenario where I would support an appeal.Cptnono (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Prehaps you would be kind enough to be more explicit and explain why I should start “start looking at [myself]? Prunesqualer (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Instead of being pissed about what you see as a double standard (which I completely understand based on my history of trying to follow the rules while others do not) you should start editing, adjust the misrepresentations and remove the "vultures" comments from your page, and consider the options available to you that would drop the block. Indefinite does not need to meed forever unless you want it to. Coming here and ranting about how pissed off you are is not benefiting your editing status. Also take a look at WP:OFFER.Cptnono (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * “Coming here and ranting about how pissed off you are is not benefiting your editing status. “ Sounds like a catch 22 to me. Ie complain and you're damned by the status que, don’t complain and the status que prevails. Prunesqualer (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are still doing it. Venting might make you feel a little better but I have gone from understanding your concern to being dismissive of it based on you failing to get it. So make sure to read the link provided if you want anything to actually change.Cptnono (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec--this is directed to Prunesqualer's last comment)(talk page stalker) No, the point is that complaining here gets you nowhere. Having long rants on your talk page that essentially amount to a claim that there is a cabal/conspiracy group controlling the POV on certain articles also gets you nowhere. Indefinite bans are removed when an editor can prove that they understand why the ban was enacted, and that they won't do the things that caused them to be banned again in the first place. The way you can do that is getting rid of all of your POV pushing, prove for at least a few months that you are capable of editing Wikipedia in a neutral fashion by making constructive, neutral edits to articles outside of the area you were topic banned in. Then explain clearly why you know what you did is wrong and why you won't do it again. This could take a while, depending on how egregious the community found your original problems to be. I promise, neither the encyclopedia nor the articles on I/P issues are going to disappear while you regain the community's trust. Whether or not what Cptnono did was correct, and whether or not he was treated fairly by the community when he broke the rules has no bearing on whether or not you will be allowed to edit in that area again. Continuing to rant here will actually make people less likely to trust you. So if you really are interested in editing Wikipedia per policy, guidelines, and general sanctions, you should drop the stick and walk away. This is just the advice of an uninvolved non-admin, but I think that, if you sincerely want to edit here, it's a good idea. If you don't, and all you want to do is complain how unfair the system is, please take that to another website (there are plenty of places on the internet where you can rant about how biased Wikipedia is). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, again, I must ask you to be more explicit. Which link (please reinsert below). Prunesqualer (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

PS Where would we be if people like Galileo and Copernicus had followed the drop the stick and walk away? Prunesqualer (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OFFER.Cptnono (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If Wikipedia wants to judge inexperienced editors far more severely for procedural errors rather than judging experienced editors for saying they are anti-Jew or anti-Arab or calling people “pricks” or telling them to “fuck off”, or clearly being hypocrites who am I to argue. Prunesqualer (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are still doing it. How about you go edit some articles and make the request. I assume you do not need to wait 6 months to have editors support it if you prove yourself. Anyways, I did not disrupt the main space as you did. Disruption on an article is more problematic in my opinion. That principle actually has some consensus throughout the community since civility blocks are not often done unless it is severe circumstances or restricted per an arbitration decision. So go edit and make sure you are not going against consensus or edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt whatsoever that Pro - Israeli groups have recruited, organised, and trained people in order to influence Wikipedia (see my user talk page). I suspect that other groups, opposed to Israel, have also attempted to infiltrate/subvert Wiki. In the light of this reality your complacent stance on consensus seems a little redundant. Prunesqualer (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that I was recruited by Israel to edit? Kind of funny that you are expressing all this rage about civility and blah blah blah but you have yet to go start editing but instead continue evolving rants. So lets pretend I am paid by Israel: Thank you for your assistance in the propaganda war by resigning yourself to the fact that you will not be editing in topic area. C'mon now, take the advice or don't. Realistically, the last thing we need is another editor who refuses to attempt to be neutral while also engaging in conspiracy theories. Cptnono (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh come off it; “the last thing we need is another editor who refuses to attempt to be neutral”. I am not a Muslim or an Arab but I dare say I have prejudices. However I certainly don’t wish to be prejudiced. My life experiences have lead me to the edits/comments I have made, as have yours. How these ripples of consciousness will play out in the grand scheme of things who can say? Kill or be Killed? My tribe or yours? Compromise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prunesqualer (talk • contribs) 03:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. No clarification needed, though. I have given you my opinion on how you can return to the topic area and I now truly hope you do not take that advice.Cptnono (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy your war Prunesqualer (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Onward to victory!Cptnono (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * “Onward to victory!” that ought to be funny, but coming from you I don’t find it so. Prunesqualer (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Who said it was meant to be funny? Probably should stop responding on my talk page before I start talking about girls again. In all seriousness, think over your options. Your contribution list should not be you doing nothing but being upset. I get why you are upset but there are ways to get it back on track if you feel like it. Will take some serious effort on your part though since right now you returning seems like it isn't (rightfully so) a possibility.Cptnono (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's just enjoy our newly discovered biological, chemical and nuclear weapons whilst we celebrate our tribal instincts. LOL Prunesqualer (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We have had those in the States for sometime now. And when I celebrate my tribal instincts I sit down and listen to some Neurosis. Anyways, you aren't accomplishing much here so feel free to go work on an article.Cptnono (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * On the subject of music, I would be interested to hear what you make of this: [removed link to YouTube copyvio] (UK (band)) (Prunesqualer (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My taste is kind of broad but I am not really into that style.Cptnono (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Onward to victory!" How depressing can you get? Prunesqualer (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Correos
Mail. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 04:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!


jiujitsuguy (talk) is wishing you happy thanksgiving!

Spread the cheer. And don't friggen change for friggen anybody!--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Disruption at Artistic reactions to the 1981 Irish hunger strike
I just thought I ought to inform you that the proposed deletion template you added to the Artistic reactions to the 1981 Irish hunger strike is being continuously removed by an editor who likes to call my fixing his disruption "disruptive". I'd just like to have your input on it please. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

FA review
I saw that you have nominated Sigi Schmid for FA review. I've been out of comission around here for a while (and that probably won't change soon unfortunately). Very busy with work and family. Good luck with the FA review. It will be great to have another FA related to Sounders FC.

In related news, I've been thinking of nominating Sounders FC for TFA on March 19 next year. The date coincides with their first match (so extra points for that), and also will be on-or-about the same week as the 2011 season starting so it will be good to schedule it then. What do you think of that plan? --SkotyWATC 06:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I wasn't talking about the featured topic goal. That will happen when it happens (maybe next year at the earliest).  Above, I was talking about nominating Seattle Sounders FC for Today's Featured Article (TFA) on the main page for March 19.  It think it'll be a pretty solid nomination to make it on that day.  --SkotyWATC 02:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Server kittens
Yeah, I'm cool with non-templated references too. Don't really care either way, but since this line might end up getting copy-pasted around a lot I just wanted it as clean as possible.

I'm not sure what's going to happen either. I thought Shuki reverted Nableezy simply because the line discussed the legality issue. Then Jaakobou was saying that it was because Nableezy didn't use the exact line from the proposal in our discussion. To some extent, Nableezy might have gotten reverted just for being Nableezy; I'm not sure honestly. I know you and I respectfully disagree on this (which is cool, and which the whole project could use more of), but my stance was pretty much the same as LessHeard vanU—that there was some general consensus for the phrase (or the closest thing to consensus in the I-P topic area), but the discussion mostly fell apart before we could fully flesh out where to put it. I suspect there will still be a lot of edit warring over that as well.

Btw, I've been super busy lately, and will continue to be at least midway through next week (though realistically probably much longer), but I've been keeping an eye on the Sigi Schmid article as well. I tend to be a diff reviewer, only checking changes made to an article instead of combing the article itself, and pretty much all the changes editors have made since you nominated it for FA have looked good to me. I think the text is really solid, but wish we had a more recent picture of him in Sounders colors in the lead, or more pictures of him from his playing or earlier coaching days. Ah well, I know those are a total pain to come by. Great work on getting it this far! ← George talk 11:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Inman
No problem. I thought the name rang a bell when I saw him mentioned at WP:AN - I was the original AfD nominator! BencherliteTalk 11:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban
Under the authority of WP:ARBPIA, and based on the discussion in this AE thread, you are hereby admonished for personal attacks and ad hominem comments and are prohibited from commenting on or interacting with anywhere on Wikipedia. Please see WP:IBAN for the complete scope of the interaction ban. If you believe that Nableezy has violated their ban from interacting with you, you may not react to that alleged violation except by the procedure specified in the AE thread above. T. Canens (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And in response to your comment there, I was somewhat ambivalent until I noticed that you had previously been sanctioned for discussing editor conduct on article talk pages. While many of your comments in the discussion Cla68 linked to was acceptable viewed alone, together they are not acceptable; and the history of negative interactions is certainly favors an interaction ban. I do note that you are one of the more reasonable editors in this area from what I have seen, but it is probably best to take a step back when you find yourself frustrated. T. Canens (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It sucks since I see where you are coming from. I still disagree for the most part and am appealing. Please don't think I am disregarding your response, though.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

in RE talk:TPM - censoring talk
Hey, since I usually trust your judgement and you're active on the TPM article, I thought I'd ask for your feedback on this new subsection I just added (either there or at my talkpage). I'm inclined to just ignore the other editor I mentioned, but I do think it's worth noting at the talkpage if not at an admin noticeboard. It appears to be a pattern with that editor removing talkpage sections under false claims. - PrBeacon (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Consider retitling the subsection since "censoring" might cause a knee-jerk reaction.Cptnono (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Creampie move
Cptnono, could you have another look at Herostratus's move request? I thought in the previous discussion which you refer to your rationale was that this was and should remain the article on the pornographic practice (a stance with which I agree). But it strikes me as legitimate -- or actually, an improvement -- then to refer to it as "creampie (pornography)" in the title; certainly all the cited sources discuss it in that context. -- JN 466  19:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

AfDs
Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto
Rabbi Pinto I appreciate the commentary. Am frustrated because a few people are bullying info here when the facts are simply inaccurate. I will follow your advice. Would greatly appreciate your review and feedback and commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 05:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont know how to sign and thats a mistake. Anyway are you interested in reviewing the material, have you ? Or just coaching from sidelines ? (and I apologize if not signing the right way)..contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok so can you add it in that case ? Who says besmirch ? Of course its factual that he owns it - Will you add it and be involved in this process ? All of my edits are supported entirerly by the facts and the articles already included as sources. Babasalichai (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Please so get involved and post and comment ? I wont and will leave it alone but if others see the post isnt accurate then others will follow. And for the record follow the edit page their reasoning makes no sense at all and they have given in on nothing. Babasalichai (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Schmid
It may take me a day or two to get to it, but I'll have another look and copy-edit anything I think still needs doing. I don't think it's in any danger of immediate archiving, so I wouldn't worry if it's gone quiet. If I haven't done anything in a week, come back and shout at me a bit. The weekend is the most likely time I'll get to it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Slight delay as RL was much busier than expected this weekend. I want to come at it fresh, so it will be one of the first things I do this week (my brain is too wrecked to review this evening!) --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As you have gathered, I'm copyediting now! Just revert anything I mess up or you are not happy with, I won't be offended! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Switched to support, with one reservation which I will strike once you reply one way or another. However, I'll keep looking and may tweak prose some more over the next day or two. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Done the lead comment and switched to full support. However, I'm not sure the ref now covers the comment in the lead and I haven't added one: if you think it needs one, you may need to tweak it! Cheers. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I just responded there. I like it. I think it meets the reference and what happened just fine. The only alternative I could see (somewhat tongue in cheek) would be saying that his defensive tactics led to unentertaining ball but that would raise a whole host of issues. Your help was really appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Your AE appeal
For the reasons I stated here, and subject to the warnings and reminders therein, your ban from interacting with  is lifted, effective immediately. T. Canens (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand and appreciate the reminder. Thank you.Cptnono (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Vancouver Southsiders
It's about the fan club not the soccer club. Please see the talk page. I am not going to respond here or on my talk page thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, please do not use profanity on my talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the discussion at WP:WQA, please don't swear at other editors, even in the face of provocation. I trust we'll not see a repeat offence. Cheers. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Blargh. I hear you. Appreciate the warning. Cptnono (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

--Neo139 (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC) --Neo139 (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Settlements archiving??
Just saw your note. Haven't figured out if it's just that end part that's not finished; if not, could you just include that and then link to the archive page? (Note I screwed something up in the archiving and am even now redoing it from scratch correctly, so don't look at archive page for another 10 minutes. Unless what I thought was screwed up was related to your editing in middle of my archiving. We'll see.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be a problem as a whole to keep it in context. Just the subsection will be worse then a lengthy discussion. With all of the other stuff gone it should not be as confusing. Give it a couple weeks and if there is no more conversation then go for it. Cptnono (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it ok to archive now? Do you want the archive to direct people to "Text of conclusion from the previous conversation" at the top of the "Legality of Israeli settlements" archive? Feel free to archive it if you do - or tell me how you want it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If there have been no comments since then it sounds about right. Running a bot on it every x days might be simpler than having to think about it.Cptnono (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case a separate archive was created. I will take care of it. Since there are pros and cons on running a bot on this kind of project, doing so might be run by Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration first. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed
FWIW, I agree with your revert. Let me know if you need help arriving at consensus on this one. --SkotyWATC 08:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Replies
Kitchen staff? I work at Microsoft. Not sure what you mean.

Reasons why the list is different:
 * It was a point of contention during FA review.
 * It's not necessary that all MLS articles use the same format. This is an FA level article and therefore often needs to be different.
 * It's the only choice available that fully compliant with WP:FLAG.
 * There was already consensus among editors to make this change on WT:SSFC.

Glad to see the FA review is going well for Sigi Schmid. It will be nice to add another FA to the list. I'm happy you didn't give up on it. You've worked hard on it and passing FA will be a nice payday for your work. I look forward to congratulating you.

2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final is my current project. It's on its way to GA level now (already nominated). Then it's on to PR and then finally FA review. ETA is probably late February at best. --SkotyWATC 09:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One other note. I'm going to request permission for another picture for the USOC article soon.  I'll also ask for a picture of Sigi while I'm at it.  They have some very good pictures of him that would work well in the article.  I'll let you know when permission has been granted.  --SkotyWATC 09:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI on this... I've sent mail to the marketing person I got permission from last time. I got an OOF response from her saying she'll be back on the 28th.  I asked for permission to use this USOC image and this Sigi Schmid image.  Hopefully that Schmid image will work for the article.  --SkotyWATC 20:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Permission granted. URL: . I'll let you add it to the article now if you don't think it'll be too disruptive to the FA review or later if that suites you better. --SkotyWATC 05:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sweetness! As soon as the OTRS is not pending (assume that is a quick process) it can go in. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The OTRS review took a month last time. I'd expect it to take at least that long this time.  I think that if it's pending OTRS review, it's fine to use in an FA, but I'm not certain on that.  I added the 2009 USOC image to the team article and the article covering the final while it was still pending and both were already FA level articles. That said, if you have hesitations, just wait.  The Schmid article is already good enough to pass FA review without the image I think. --SkotyWATC 07:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Confirmed and in.Cptnono (talk) 08:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was amazingly fast. I'm stunned considering the last one took almost a month.  Very cool. --SkotyWATC 08:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I shot a request out via IRC. The OTRS channel looked dead but went to the main one and dude was quick. Looks like he grabbed the other one, too. That was a good night.Cptnono (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies
for accidentally removing your comment as I added mine. I was heading back to reinsert it when I saw you beat me to it. Sorry. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. Assumed it was an accident.Cptnono (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

in re ANI, another editor's allegation of SPI
Hey, I'd like to get your feedback on something -- here or at my talkpage, please. Another editor, User:Doc9871, just accused me of being the main account for User:Dylan_Flaherty at an ANI over the Palin article: "If I had to pick one editor as a possible Dylan master, it would be PrBeacon (talk · contribs). The wikistalk is impressive[31] ... and I'm not seeing much in the way of edit overlap (I could be wrong). If a CU is run, I'd put my money here." - Doc9871 My response is directly below his. I probably made a mistake in mentioning the another editor who just resumed his snarky retorts from a few months ago, elsewhere, and who just replied at ANI too.

I wasn't directly involved in the dispute at the Palin article or at the ANI. But from our discussions at the SPLC & TPM articles, I considered Dylan to be a reasonable minded editor. I wasn't aware of his aruments at Palin. In the ANI, I posted a couple of small points to support his right to defend himself. I don't know how to read that wiki-stalk thing that Doc linked, other than noticing that the same list for him & Dylan seems similar -- and it shows nothing more than overlapping interests. If and when a CU is performed, I expect an apology from him but I'm not about to write that at ANI as it sounds as petty as his post does. But his accusations seem too serious to just toss out there. Regards, - PrBeacon (talk) 07:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am so sorry, PRB. I don't have the time to look at the diffs right now but should be able to tomorrow. Without looking into it in depth, I would see if getting a check user to clear your name is acceptable. I thought Dylan was alright but he has kind of rubbed me the wrong way lately. You and I have not always agreed but you have always seemed more than decent and the mannerisms just don't seem to be there so I assume the allegation is ridiculous. Besides seeing if getting a check user is allowed, the other advice I would give right now is looking at what you might have done to get on the wrong side of the accuser. I am not saying you are to blame but I have noticed that when I start getting frustrated I usually had at least some part in it. That doesn't excuse anyone else crossing the line ad it might be too late to realistically come to an understanding with the other user but consider it. No matter what, continued allegations against you are going to be maddening.Cptnono (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I have no history with the Doc. I can only assume he chose to attack me because I was one of the few voices of support for Dylan (albeit very mild on the spectrum, there, especially compared to how many folks are attacking Dylan for speaking his mind though yes too aggressively and frequently). I happen to think he's right in principle as far as the bigger picture goes (Palin vs. GOP), though i'm doubtful the 'Africa' barb is worth mentioning. And I really don't know enough about CU so I guess I have another thing to read up on now. Thanks again. - PrBeacon (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Unable to reach wikipedia user Ohnoitsjamie
Hello. I uploaded a edited version of the second image for the wikipedia Facial (sexual) page after reading through the discussion. Unfortunately user "Ohnoitsjamie" continued to revert the image back. I have tried contacting Jamie on his talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ohnoitsjamie but I can't find the link to post on his talk page. Any help would be really appreciated. The new edited image can be found here (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Facial.jpg) and was created by the User Seedfeeder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.188.2.174 (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Posting material that needs revision to the discussion page (Operation Payback)
Hi Cptnono, I see you deleted a user's attempt to contextualize and locate Operation Payback within the historic continuum. In this and similar cases, rather than simply deleting, and recommending that the user concerned post their edit to the discussion page, please could you post it there yourself (in case the relevant user were to fall inactive or be otherwise engaged, thus forestalling discussion). I do not know whether in this case some preliminary material might be salvaged and retained on the main page prior to consensus being reached on the discussion page. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not when it is that bad.Cptnono (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice one :) De gustibus non est disputandum, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What is Latin for: Do better and read the guidelines, punk? :)
 * In all seriousness though, throw your draft up on the talk page. There might be something worth salvaging. Fist off: a quote from the source would be appreciated since it is an offline source. And since it is an article with some shenanigans it is hard to assume good faith (no offense). If I am going to go to the library since I cannot find an extract online it will be really annoying if you misrepresented the source or the validity of the source. Do you have something emailable? I hate to ask but you are definitely going to run into resistance (biting the newcommers and all) so you should make it as easy as possible. Second: Get the MoS in order. Does it really deserve its own section? And third (related to second), get the POV in check. It gives it some aura of awesomness that is just a little heavy. Take a look at the wording.
 * So follow up on the talk page and not here. Don't waste your time on my talk page when there are plenty of editors interested if you take it over there. You should have done that in the first place since your arguing with me isn't improving the article in one bit, is it? I honestly do want the article to turn out well and am actually a supporter so good luck!Cptnono (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Cptnono's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day... Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 05:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above is given on behalf of User:La comadreja. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 05:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured List?
I just did some work on List of Seattle Sounders FC seasons to add a nice lead section to it. I've dabbled with this list in the past adding a bunch of the columns that are there now. I'm considering nominating it for featured list, but I'm not sure if it meets the criteria (specifically it may be too short). What do you think? Would it be a quick fail (and therefore a waste of time) or should I go ahead and try? --SkotyWATC 23:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. It has all of the components in place and looks great. But it is so short it might not be appropriate. Do you know if there is any precedent for failing shorter lists?Cptnono (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any precedent. I don't have experience with featured lists either though. --SkotyWATC 06:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * After taking a look at WikiProject Football and the only difference for the mos part is the size of the list. So if the lead was tightened (it is a little sporadic right now) and some slight MoS tweaks were done this could be a real possibility.Cptnono (talk) 07:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wouldn't mind taking a pass through the prose, I'd appreciate it. Then we could submit it for WP:FLC review as a co-nomination maybe.  What do you say? --SkotyWATC 07:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Would love to. Give me a day or so just because I am off to bed soon?Cptnono (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Won't be able to get through the prose tonight but starting a discussion on the talk page. This will be kick ass.Cptnono (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It took me 2 days to reply to your comments on the talk page. Sorry for the delay. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 06:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. That project at work just keeps on going and going so my time on Wikipedia is hindered. Take your time and enjoy it. The Sounders project has been nothing but good times.Cptnono (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Merry (IP) Christmas
A longterm IP editor says ! - 220.101 talk\Contribs 00:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Same to you!Cptnono (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
Hello Cptnono! There is a mediation cabal case naming you in a dispute - I have volunteered to mediate the problem and I would like to know if you would be accepting of the process. Cheers! Lord Roem (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No but the offer is appreciated. There are still other options available before escalating it to mediation. There were also multiple editors already involved which led to the material having no consensus to include. The personal attacks and forum shopping make me even less inclined.Cptnono (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright. If the dispute continues without a resolution, mediation would be the next step in the process but if you feel its not ready for that, that is understandable (also considering most of this has just happened in December looking at the the Glenn Beck page itself).
 * I wish you a happy new year! Cheers! -- Lord Roem (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

2011 WikiCup
Hey, it's not too late to sign up! Where would you like to represent? J Milburn (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is awesome! I would like to represent Seattle with the flag File:Seattle-Flag.png but it looks like its copyright is in question. So if that is a concern File:Flag of Washington.svg looks headache free and just as well. Thanks!Cptnono (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Note
I don't recall for sure, but did Grapefruit also threaten to look you up on Google? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He did. It is linked over at ANI in my original comment. Thanks for the follow-up.Cptnono (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not. Never did I threaten to investigate you. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

PLease quote verbatim the passage where I say this. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you continue to do this? You say that you were not warned and then I provide you a diff showing where you clearly were. You say you were not provided links to policy but you were. In this diff you make it clear that you have googled me: Are you intentionally being dishonest or are you not reading talk pages fully since you are so upset?Cptnono (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't an effort to expose your identity, but your political biases. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And I am upset because you've been bullying the page and acting like you run wikipedia or something.Fuck you. FUCK YOU> FUCK YUOU FUUUUUUUUCK YOUOOUOOUUOOUOUOUOUUOOUOU!!!!! STOP PUSHING ME AROUND ASSHOLE> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU ARE A FUCKING BULLLY and you are a biased editor who controls the Beck page. FUCK YOU. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

YOU F ING WIN. LET THEM F ing BAN ME. WIKIPEDIA IS PATHETIC BECAUSE IT LETS PUNKS LIKE YOU RUN THE SITE. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

AND STOP DELETING MY POSTSDeliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono has not deleted an of your posts. It looks like one of your posts got accidentally deleted here by Gsbus8 who was in an edit conflict with you, but I'm not seeing any other example of one of your posts being deleted. --AerobicFox (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone has deleted numerous of my posts and topics on the discussion page. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please point to specific examples as I was unable to find any. Are you sure you aren't confusing edit conflicts with people deleting your posts? --AerobicFox (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

They are there my friend. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If they are there, then they are not deleted. So what's the issue? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My talk page is not here for DG to bitch about stuff. Knock it off. You are still being disruptive and there is little patience for anymore shenanigans.Cptnono (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2011 WikiCup!
Hello, happy new year and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 01:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

FA at last! FA at last! Thank Jimbo Wales, it's FA at last!

 * Side note: It continues to be a pleasure working with you as we knock off WP:SSFC articles one at a time. That's 4 FAs between the two of us.  I'm already pretty far along on number 5. You seem to pick the hard ones though (Qwest Field was probably worse than Sigi), and I keep taking the low hanging fruit. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 02:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Woohooo! That one sat for a bit and I was getting worried. Thanks, dude.Cptnono (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Peer review of 2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final
Good news, 2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final has just passed WP:GA review and now has that most excellent green icon in the top right. Keeping the progress going, I opened a peer review for the article in the hopes of getting it prepared for an FA review. If you have some spare cycles, it would be great if you would take a moment and read the article and provide feedback/suggestions on the prose (or anything else). Thanks. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 06:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Dude
Regarding Gokkun: per WP:CONSENSUS, the general operative rule is, more or less, stare decisis - failing consensus, or other indicator for change such as application of a policy, the existing state is retained. You people use this all the time to sneak in inappropriate material - if nobody notices and objects for a certain time, viola, it gets to stay, absent a consensus to remove. Very nice. But you can't have it both ways. In this particular case, the existing state is for the image not to be in the article. Herostratus (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Enjoy your break. Stop playing games and stop edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you, very much, for doing the GA Review for Tory Christman, much appreciated. I think you forgot to list the page at Good articles/Social sciences and society? Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary
You wrote in a recent edit summary, "you cannot close an RfC you are involved in. You also ignored several related comments". In fact, WP:RfC says, "If consensus has been reached before then, the RfC nominator(s) can remove the RfC tag...." It appears that consensus was reached. I understand that the far right like to call their opponents "left-wing", but articles must reflect a neutral point of view, not the view of the far right. TFD (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He wasn't the nominator was he now? Nothing misleading about it. ALso, it is bad form and against common practice to make such a move without having a neutral party review it. If you do not understand that then you need to adjust how you use RfCs. Speaking of misleading, if there is consensus is disputed with the misleading opening comment. You two have been gaming the system for too long and both should be blocked.Cptnono (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

How to solve the dispute you reported at AN3
Hello Cptnono. See my proposal at WP:AN3. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Already responded over there. He was edit warring regardless of what consensus might be.Cptnono (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed from Gaza war.
Hey! I just wondered why you removed my stuff from the Gazawar article? Your reasons were a bit arbitrary. Although I agree that it doesnt have to be a new subsection, it could be included in the misconduct regarding IDF soldiers.NPz1 (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Arbitary removals.
Hey!

You fail to tell me which rules I have broken regarding the Gazawar article. What information did I fail to include from the source, for the sake of arguments, if that is the problem, why didnt you just tell me which part I left out, or why didnt you add it yourself?

Furhtermore, the information I added is important and fit the controversy of acts carried out by the IDF and should therefore be stated in the article since the subcategory deals with the exact thing. While I agree that it doesnt have to be a new sub for this I could include it somewhere else, no problem.

Furthermore, why do you removed Tancredo? I have spoken with Acroterion about this. I then edited the tex, add it again and used the discussion page to let people know of the add and called for critcism and more information about the specific topic.

Furthermore, why do you removed Cassese part?

Again, your reasons are arbitrary.NPz1 (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have explained it to you on your talk page. You have received the appropriate links in the past to give you a better understanding of the process. I will not waste my time playing games but did enjoy cleaning up.Cptnono (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Too much fun. Clarified on you talk page.Cptnono (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Re: Arbitrary removals
Hey!

You still fail to adress my questions, which rule have I broken regarding these 3 articles? We need to remove all sorts of POV argumentsNPz1 (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Re: Re: Arbitary removals
Hey!

Again please work with me.


 * Tancredo = Like I said I have already been in contact with another mod about this, he gave me guidelines and I have followed them. My add is fully compatible with the rules.


 * Cassese = Which rules do I breach here?


 * Gaza war = Which rules do I breach here? The category is about : " Controversial tactics allegedly used by Israel" so obviously my addition fits this category very well. And if, like you say, that I have missed out something in the source. Let me know what that is and I edit the text.NPz1 (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Arbitary removals
Hey!

Well you got the burden of proof to present the rules that I have broken. I also used the talk-page for Tancredo, so why didnt you approach me there?NPz1 (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arbitary removals
Hey!

Yes you have the burden of proof because you are the on accusing and claiming. Also, as stated before, we need to remove all POV related arguments.NPz1 (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arbitary removals
Hey!

Its very simple, if you accuse someone of a breach etc you got the burden of proof to present the facts, namely the violations of rules, just giving me a link doesnt expose any violations, it rather points out that POV is being used to remove stuff on an arbitrary basis.NPz1 (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arbitary removals
Hey!

Please work with me. Removal is not based on arbitrary or made up terms like "problematic", it is based on the Wikipedia rules - and those are very clear. The same rules you have failed to present. Like I said, giving me links doesnt expose any violations. NPz1 (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Revert
Hey!

Someone reverted my edit without reason, as you can see I took use of your guidelines you gave me the other day - namely I have shortened it, removed and put it under an already present category. The person who reverted it must have missed that. Again we must remove all such POV arguments.NPz1 (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Glenn Beck
You have some nerve, mate. I haven't so much as looked at that article since the last time you gave me that ban nonsense, and you're giving me a second warning for vandalising it? You've removed my comment from your talk page, so you are clearly annoyed by my politics, and obviously allowing your bias to interfere with your duties as an administrator at Wikipedia. I won't go so far as to call you corrupt, but perhaps you should stand down from your position if you cannot keep your own feelings in check. This isn't a forum for conservatives to suppress free speech that they don't agree with. I've been editing at Wikipedia for many years now, and although I might not log in any more, I'd appreciate it if you had the stones to talk to me about your problem, rather than give me the standard, anti-vandal bot post that I have received twice. I would really like to hear your argument regarding my vandalism of Wikipedia's articles before you go and ban me. Personally, I don't think you have a foot to stand on, so tell me otherwise. 110.174.91.113 (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (stalker): Did you forget that you wrote this? BLP violating vandalism is just as forbidden on talk pages as it is on article pages. WP:BLP and WP:SOAP apply to all namespaces.  If you want to advocate an opinion about Beck, no matter how correct or incorrect you may be or think you are, you'll need to do it off of Wikipedia.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Worded well, Qwyrxian. I have the balls to tell someone that they cannot make such comments about living persons on Wikipedia (whether it be on an article talk page or my talk page) but not the patience. Someone who has been around for years should know about BLP. Feel free to explain how you were somehow not in violation of BLP, 110.174.91.113, and I will gladly explain it to you with more than a template. If not, have fun assuming the worst and being mad when your comments are deleted. Cptnono (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't forget that at all, Qwyrxian, what do you think I've been discussing the entire time? What I should know about BLP, then, is that you cannot state an opinion on a discussion page in the context of a conversation? Because, last I'd checked, this policy was in regards to adding non-neutral, biased information to ARTICLES regarding that individual. Has this since been extended to discussion as well, or are you abusing an official policy to remove comments you personally dislike or disagree with? I checked SOAP, admittedly, I've never heard of it, but then so much policy and information creep has found it's way into Wiki's bureaucratic, behind-the-scenes nonsense recently that I would need to read policy and guideline pages weekly just to keep up. Nevertheless, SOAP also appears to regarding the article proper, not editor's discussion of the person in question. I suppose you could label my comment as propaganda to give yourself a foot, although I have a hard time seeing how anybody could deny that Beck is politically extreme right. You could also say that the Gestapo comment was out of line, until you take into account that Beck, himself, stated that progressives are radical communists who all need to be shot in the head. There's nothing Gestapo about that train of thought.. 110.174.91.113 (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." and "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories." - WP:BLP Enough said.Cptnono (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cptnono beat me to it. Apparently, either the policy changed since the "last time you checked", or, in fact, you never understood WP:BLP correctly.  I don't know the history of the policy well enough to know if it always applied across all namespaces or if that was added later, although I'm pretty sure its the former.  In any event, whether you read it wrong, or it changed, or whatever, you are now aware of the policy, you can see Cptnono was right to delete the comment and warn you.  As a side note, you are correct in your final formulation—calling Beck to be on the extreme political right is not a BLP violation, it's the other part that is unacceptable.  Now we can all move on in peace, love, and happiness, right?  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Before we do that, I'd like you to understand that I was trying to make a legitimate point about Beck's politics in answer to the suggestion that Beck be written in as a libertarian politically. That's ludicrous, and I wanted to point out that the guy couldn't pretend to be a social liberal if his life depended on it. The Gestapo comment was a direct reference to his statement that "progressives", or political opponents, should be shot in the head to eliminate the threat they pose to "American values". This is what the Gestapo did to their political opponents, after all. Nevertheless, if BLP means we can't say what we think lest we hurt poor Mr. Beck's feelings, I'll abide by that rule and simply refrain from input the next time around. So long as you are aware that I'm not some vandal trolling for a fight, but rather somebody who needs to brush up on subtlety and euphemism when adding a negative perspective, peace, love and happiness it is. 110.174.91.113 (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unintended disruption is certainly a little better than vandalism but BLP is zero tolerance and if you don't want to be called a vandal in the future you will have to choose your words more carefully. Assume good faith is cute and all but it is unlikely that anyone will do it when you make such inflammatory remarks. Cptnono (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. As I said, I'll be more careful with my wording the next time around. 110.174.91.113 (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And I completely apologize for labeling your comment as being from a vandal when it turns out that you were obviously not trying to be malicious. And to clarify, my feelings on him are not that positive. My reasons for not liking him are different but I get where you are coming from. Nice work having the balls to keep the discussion going to the point that there is at least some understanding.Cptnono (talk) 06:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

NPz1
Hi Cptnono. If NPz1 violated 1RR, please make a report at WP:ANEW or WP:AE. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any obligation to notify an editor about ANEW discussions (as opposed to ANI), but it's a courtesy. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I have posted to the user's talk page and to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring about this. (The user removed my talk page post two minutes after I posted it, which, in view of past history, is not surprising.) I considered an immediate block, but decided against it for a couple of reasons. Please feel free to contact me about any further problems with this editor. After all the warnings and advice that have been given, I will be willing to block if there is any continuation at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to, who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by , with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to, who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, , who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, 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 22:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Good article nomination of 2010 Panama City school board shootings
Thanks for reviewing my nomination of 2010 Panama City school board shootings. I plan to start working on your suggestions right away, but I was wondering if you could hold the review for a few days while I fix up the article. Let me know if this sounds reasonable. --Ashershow1talk • contribs 20:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I already closed it out but shoot me a message as soon as you are ready (even if it turns out to only be a couple days) and I will make sure to get to it. Also let me know if you need a hand on any MoS bits or anything else.Cptnono (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, fixed it all up. On the discussion page of the article (where the GA review is transcluded), I have left a '&#x2611;' next to every correction I made (or thought I made).  You'll notice there are some bullet points without checkmarks; this is probably because I chose not to make those changes.  If there's anything really serious that I left out please tell me.  Otherwise I think we're ready for another review.  Thanks for your help. --Ashershow1talk • contribs 01:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, I don't mean to rush you, but is there any chance you could re-review the article this weekend? --Ashershow1talk • contribs 16:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Falafel
It would be nice if we could finally make some progress on actually improving the article. I'll start digging up some vegan sources and info which we can maybe add to the article. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ &lrm; 23:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: YouTube
Sry, I didnt realized that the videos were deleted by the user and yes, the I added the other videos. there is more of them that are going to be released that show the police shooting at protesters. I would for you to take a look at the article and tell me what do you think and where can e=we improve. I also would welcome your edits -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto
Can you take a look please ? There's a single user account beobjectiveplease making continual edits which arent balanced. Thanks Babasalichai (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

EL
Hi, I didn't understand your revert of the live coverage EL at 2011 Egyptian protests. Can you explain? Ocaasi (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the link will not be useful to the article in the near future. It is a link to their channel which means its content will be different soon. Wikipedia is not hear to disseminate breaking news.Cptnono (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we move this to the article talk page? I'll respond there. Ocaasi (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Already done.Cptnono (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Requesting you let this one slide. You were a bit snarky about BRD, though I meant that I would have kept to it if the time was not an issue.  I realize that's part of the problem as you see it, but this is a particularly useful link right now.  If that means IAR, well, I think it's a great time to do it, if the link helps anyone else find a live online feed. Ocaasi (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You have been reported for edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever. It was only 3 anyway, but I tried to explain the reasoning, and I think you are choosing a particularly inapt time to be a stickler for WP:EL. Think about the people who would like to watch this speech online, and think about how the link can (and will) be removed.  At the least IAR--the historical importance of this event is staggering. Ocaasi (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You removed the wrong link. I undid the edit, so the Al Jazeera channel link is still there.  I won't go as far as to take it out myself, but I left a note in the edit comment explaining.  (I still disagree about the link, but don't intend to continue putting it back if you do take it out).  If you want a different perspective, look around at the entire article, which screams this is a live and changing event.  Everything from the template at the top of the page, to the daily incrementing and expanding sections, to the rapid edit history, and the assortment of 'Live Coverage' in the external links.  I see this as part of what Wikipedia is capable of doing, and as long as it is maintained, doing well.  I cite WP:NOTNEWS regularly, but I think as an EL for a critical ongoing event, there is plenty of room in Wikipedia's arsenal for this. Ocaasi (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That was my mistake. However, it is concerning that you made the revert with keeping the problematic content in. You are also over 3/rr now counting all of your reverts. The ones to the IPs were good and the recent one makes sense even with the bad form but 3/rr is a brightline rule.
 * Also, other editors introducing content not inline with our policies and guidelines does not give you the excuse to do the same. If it makes you feel any better, if I had not burnt up all my reverts trying to keep you from violating our standards I would be doing those right now.Cptnono (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted the removal of the wrong link. So you can still take out the link within 3RR, if you want to follow it by the letter.  I am not over 3RR, since the last revert did not add the link back (I don't care for the letter of 3RR as long as we're discussing this, but since others do, that may be relevant).  3RR may be a bright line rule, but it only applies to the disputed content specifically, so both of us can revert unrelated content as many times as necessary; and both of us should continue to try and improve the article while we discuss the contentious issues.  I note sarcasm when you say, 'if it makes you feel any better'.  It would make me feel better if you didn't think this was worthy of edit warring but would instead let slide.  I don't relish 'winning' on a technicality.  Revert it if you think it doesn't belong, not because of 3RR, which you haven't even met yet. Ocaasi (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong. You have made 4 reverts today. "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. " Note "whether involving the same or different material"
 * And you didn't win anything since the link will be removed.Cptnono (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to be a slave to policy where obvious exceptions make sense; at the very least the undoing the incorrect removal of an admittedly uninvolved section (the Wael Ghonim interview) has nothing to do with 3RR. I merely restored the article to the state prior to your edit, correcting the mistake.  You can revert it again as you intended, but my revert has nothing to do with 3RR.  I'd defend that, but this is still a big waste of time.  The article is fine and will continually be improved as the situation changes.  Ocaasi (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to break policy. And if you think it is a waste of time stop edit warring. Some editors prefer to have higher quality encyclopedic articles instead of news coverage. And your adjustment of the template was inappropriate. I am disputing the EL not if that line goes off topic. That could also be considered a revert due to the portion that discusses modification. And since you did not read it the first time: "whether involving the same or different material"Cptnono (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't breaking policy in my opinion, but if it was, I think it would be warranted. Fixing the EL tag was appropriate since other links had not been discussed.  You can, but until you do, the tag applies only to the disputed pieces.  That is basic tagging protocol--you only tag the disputed pieces, the more specific the better.  You can keep collecting 3RR notes, but I'm more interested in the event and the article's usefulness.  High quality articles do reflect the best available information, and external links which are current and relevant are a part of that.  This is a difference of approach to current events articles, not an obvious violation of EL.  If you don't think so, let's bring an RFC or post it over at Talk:Jimbo Wales.  I think a fair number of people will see it both ways, and the lack of harm from having a link which will need to be updated will prevail over concerns that at some point the link will be out of date, or that it's too newsy in an article which itself is entirely about a current event.  It's not out of date now, and I think its value is obvious in the context of the article. Ocaasi (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * IAR does not apply so I disagree that you should break policy as I have explained to you. I am not here to mirror news sites and that isn't what Wikipedia is here for either.
 * So how about you remove the link then open an RfC if you wish to change consensus. Post at his page but that rarely helps and he is not the ruler of Wikipedia which is shown by consensus not always agreeing with him. Most editors who run to his page get embarrassed when breaking guidelines and policies so please please feel free.
 * The tag you replaced it with is not applicable to that link regardless of any protocol.Cptnono (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not mirroring a news site, we're linking to it. IAR is a matter of debate as to whether or not the link improves the article.  Can't assume that either way, since that's what we're discussing.


 * It's the best EL tag we have. You or I could create a new one for {likely to change} but WP:EL only has so many options.  Specifically, changing the template was only in response to this edit which took your tag literally and removed the 'entire' live coverage section.  I could have asked you to do it yourself, but I'm afraid at the moment I'm more pre-occupied with the article and events.


 * I'm not concerned about being proven wrong; I'm concerned about a useful link being excluded from the article when it matters most. Maybe I'll draft something for Jimbo Wales and you can add your points or see that I covered them.


 * I count two !votes for and 2 against. This situation warrants leaving the link up while the discussion happens, since its current relevance and its usefulness are inherently related.  I will start an RFC on this tomorrow, or if you remove the link again.  For now, I am ok with the link being up and tagged.  I'm going to work on the actual article though, so I'll see which way things go later. Ocaasi (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not votes and since the !vote you are counting supported you clearly did not understand the dispute then consensus is against you. And tag it correctly if you are OK with it being up and tagged. Cptnono (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hence the ! in votes. I understood both the objections and Lihaas' comment.  He said he'd prefer a link to Al Jazeera directly, but no such link of comparable quality exists, as I explained.  I can't make the tag right now since events are a bit busy at the moment, moreso do to this policy dispute. Ocaasi (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo mini-rfc draft
I have a long list of reasons to include the link; could you add the reasons not to here:

This is what I have so far:

Arguments against the link: link violates NOTNEWS; link won't be current once the live feed is replaced by another video;... [note: I added several more at the the link below]

Ocaasi (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I posted it here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. Though I disagree with your opinion, and have no problem soliciting other people's feedback for or against, I think your summary of the situation at WP:ELN was an obvious breach of practices for neutrally describing disputes or otherwise merely providing a very short link. The description you left was one-sided and biased. We have WP:CANVASS to guide bringing others into the debate. I think you'll see the Jimbo talk page summary taking another stab at neutrality. If you are going to be a stickler for 3RR or not, I'd appreciate if you kept that other guideline in mind. Ocaasi (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was pretty clear on my position. I will do a header to make it less canvassy. The only reason I mentioned the edit warring report was for to be accused of canvassing. Since you refuse to follow guidelines I don;t need a lecture from you on them.
 * And I don't really care what you posted at Jimbo's page. I think that was silly.Cptnono (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Being clear on your position is fine, but being clear on only your position is what makes it canvassing. I am not going to accuse you of anything, since I think formal policy violations are a waste of time.  However, if you only follow certain guidelines, why should I care when you advocate for one of them?  Jimbo's talk page is great.  Hopefully there will be some insightful feedback from its frequent watchers about this important issue.  Asking questions to get feedback is never 'silly', pssh. Ocaasi (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My intent was not to canvas. I apologize and have since tried to rectify it since you mentioned it. That is the difference. You still have edit warred and added an inappropriate link. The sad part about all this is all of the time wasted on a simple layout issue. If you would have simply made it a source hours ago the we wouldn't still be talking about it. If you would have simply found another video and used it as suggested then we wouldn't be talking about it. Instead you change your reasoning (loled when he didn;t step down) and edit war. Not really productive but at least the link will be removed so I am happy about that. As I mentioned earlier, my goal is encyclopedic content and not breaking news. Try Wikinews and try to get stuff that you happen to think is important in the "In the news" section of the main page.Cptnono (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't think you intended to canvas. Nor do I intend to break EL policy.  However, I didn't change the link because there still is no better source for a live, streaming, free, online news feed from the most proximate and credible news agency covering the protests.  If you had accepted the link until it was no longer relevant and could then be removed, it also would have saved the same time.  I didn't change my reasoning, I only improved the title to reflect the situation at the YouTube channel which had changed (the crux of my argument is that such additions are possible and fairly easy to maintain).  The live-feed is still unique and relevant; that will only change once the feed dies or the protests stop.  WikiNews has been supplanted by Wikipedia for many purposes, and the external links section of articles seem like a reasonable place to make significant relevant but temporal additions, at least in this case.  If you really think that encyclopedia articles can't change with current events, then why not blank most of the entire article timeline section, which is basically a running news feed until the protests end?  The dichotomy between encyclopedia and news blotter is a false one here, since the events are current the article will inevitably have qualities of both encyclopedia and news.  You want to err on the encyclopedic side in terms of time-perspective; I want to err on the encyclopedic side in terms of inclusion of useful sources.  Neither strikes me as ridiculous, although you see your approach as obviously correct.  In The News links are not my goal; adding the most useful external links which lead readers to the best supplemental information that is available at the moment is.  I could apologize for the technical 3RR violations, which I only breached do to the timeliness and significance of these events, but not for the link itself.  I don't think it's out of place, so I'd only be sorry if it was gone.  Ocaasi (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

3RR note: Your list of relevant edits is all-inclusive, but the EngVar issue really had 'absolutely nothing' to do with it and though they 'can be contentious' were not contentious in this context and it's quite evident from the diff and the edit history that there was just an i.p. who hadn't encountered British spelling before. No need to insinuate otherwise, even tangentially. Ocaasi (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)... I think it was a little unnecessary, maybe sneaky, to collect other unrelated reverts from the history; you seem to have gone out of your way to make it more of an issue. After the extensive work done at that page by people trying to keep it in good shape from a continual assault of ips, vandalism, non-discussion, etc., it's not to fitting to have a blind selection of those efforts mined for un-related policy purposes. You were just following protocol, but I think you have missed the point and the context along the way if that is how you use efforts to improve constantly changing pieces of a complex article as points to bolster a 3RR case. Ocaasi (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Obsidian
Hello Cptnono, thank you for your review of Obsidian (1986 video game)'s GA attempt. I believe I've done what I can with the points brought up in the review, when you have time could you give the GA review an update. Thanks. Someoneanother 13:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto
Many edits now taking place would love your paticipation as it was helpful a few months ago and we seem to be making progress.Babasalichai (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice
I have reported your recent actions to the WP:ANI. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

RSN
Hi! As you mentioned I should bring up author chats on RSN, I checked the archives, and realised that I have already brought it up there once in 2009. The answer I got was kind of... unclear though.  Bramble  claw  x   23:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * I second that--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Your efforts of keeping on track were great.Cptnono (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

USOC pictures
Re: I looked around on the Commons for the USOC match pictures you mentioned, but didn't find any. Can you give me a pointer? --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 02:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought I saw some around. I will double check commons and Flickr. Off the top of my head, File:Dynamic Warm Up.jpg is from Sept 1, 2010. Not sure if I like the picture, though.Cptnono(talk) 03:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Lame. Flickr was no good. Something like this would be sweet.Cptnono (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

MOS:DAB
Hello, I just wanted to notify you of my reply in that section. Until minutes ago, I was unaware that you responded to me, as I removed the page from my watchlist weeks before your latest comment. — LOL T/C 20:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I actually haven't followed it to closely myself. Cptnono (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 February newsletter
So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to (first, with 487 points) and (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seenhere. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it onWikiCup/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 23:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Operation Titstorm
I have written a review at Talk:Operation Titstorm/GA2 and placed your nomination on hold. Racepacket (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

re the ae
I have been following the AE. Here's what I see with the following links from SD's very recent history: All of these reverts were made within moments of each other, like, yesterday. If they allow SD to continue to rid himself of opposition, then he will be free to cruise around WP without opposition, changing articles en masse like these, with the same edit summary (Not located in Israel),,,, , , , ,  Here are a couple more recent reverts for good measure , Will the admins tell us that this is "collaborative editing"? 172.129.98.151 (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Cascadia Summit
I'm really new at wikipedia, so I don't know if this is the right way to contact you, but I was wondering what the correct article for the cascadia summit was. -Element1151 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Element1151 (talk •contribs) 01:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Yeah, I guess that makes more sense. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Element1151 (talk •contribs) 02:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Re: Thanks dude, you started my day off great. Regarding the WikiCup, I don't think I'd be a very good competitor. I'm averaging about 2 FAs a year, and my disposible time for Wikipedia is not increasing. It is a fun outlet to build my writing muscles on. I am interested in finishing off the seasons list and giving it a shot at FL review. I'm not confident we'd succeed, but I'm interested in giving it a shot anyway. Last thing... can you believe the season is finally hear!? It has been a long offseason.--SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 16:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to make it through the opening round. Now I am in the group stage. Kind of bummed since I had a GA go through right before the first round closed and it would have helped in this round! It is all in good fun. I'm currently considering what to do next. I still want to fiddle with the list of seasons. I want to get Zak up to GA but I have a feeling the sourcing will not be good enough. I am keeping them in due to common sense reasons but think it would stall at GAN.
 * Anyways, the little icons showing the progression of the articles you are improving are killer.Cptnono (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Itamar attack
I take critiques of my work by thoughtful editors such as yourself very seriously. Can you elaborate a little and give me specific examples of my writing in this article that you felt were overly emotional or that gave undue weight to a particular POV? If I did do stuff like that, I agree with you that it's not an issue for AE, but I disagree with your idea that it should be tolerated because the topic is emotional. It's precisely with emotional topics that bad editing should be tolerated the least. Needless to say, I agree with your critique of Gatoclass' behavior, but I wouldn't be as nonchalant about it as you seem to be. Anyway, I think that my editing on this article was pretty good by absolute standards (and obviously as compared to that of Gatoclass and his bodyguards), but if you can give me useful criticism, I'll listen carefully. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing jumped out too bad. There is the question on if you misrepresented a source. And then there is the issue of adding an image to an unrelated section. Realistically, I don't know if the source problem is that problematic (haven't even looked into it that much and it is easy to misrepresent a single source when trying to lump together information repeated in sources during creation of a new article) and you did remove the image from that section it looks like.
 * On a more positive note, you handled WP:LABEL perfectly in the initial creation from my interpretation of how it should be done.
 * The article did become a little emotional (not saying it was all on you and I am not even sue if it is possible to change since it is an emotional subject) but now attempts have been made to justify the murders which I see as being even worse. Nice work creating an article. The allegation of edit warring was the issue and I assume Gatoclass simply wasn't comfortable admitting that the AE case was not needed.Cptnono (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Justifying the murders - yes, I tried to contend with that kind of POV pushing from right after I created the article, but now I think I've washed my hands of the article. In the future, if you have any more specific criticism of my editing, please let me know. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Ismailia image
Hey Cptnono!

I'm wondering if the license tag on this is valid or not. Can we add to the article here? --Sherif9282 (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I considered adding that too but wasn't sure where to put it. I assume all of the images at the commons cat will work but did not examine them too closely. See commons:Category:Battle of Ismailia for a handful of images. Cptnono (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've added that and a few more. --Sherif9282 (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, that looks pretty sweet.
 * I changed the alignment of the soldier on the road since people should not face away from the text. Not sure if it would be better to swap its placement with the tank one to keep the staggering. I personally like staggering but some authors frown on it unless it is needed so keep that in mind.
 * I also noticed that there are a few options for the crossing of the canal at the main war cat at commons so it could be swapped if another one is preferred quality wise or for any other reason.
 * I don't know much about the battle but if you see all of the images being related then there were many more images available then I thought. Nice.Cptnono (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, my kind of article: dotted with photos. And good idea! I swapped them, and I think it'll be acceptable this way, as well as looking better. The photo of the canal crossing is a good one. Maybe if we supplement it with a photo of the Israeli crossing, but I don't know where to find that. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto
You have been active in past on Rabbi Pinto a major feature on him has come out - would appreciate if you can assist at Rabbi Pinto page. http://forward.com/articles/136250/ Babasalichai (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on March 19, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/March 19, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director,. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch * ۩ ۞ 19:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

<div style="background-color: #D4AF37; border: 1px solid #1234aa; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em; padding: 8px; height: 1%;"> <div class="plainlinks" style="background-color: #FFFFFF; border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: #88a; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 1em .5em 1em;">

Seattle Sounders FC is a Major League Soccer (MLS) team based in Seattle, Washington that plays its home matches at Qwest Field. It was established in November 2007 as an MLS expansion team. The league's 15th team; Sounders FC played the first match of its inaugural season on March 19, 2009. During their first two seasons every home game was sold out, they set a new MLS record for average match attendance, and they sold the most season tickets in the league. Seattle finished both seasons with a winning record and qualified for the MLS playoffs. In 2009 Sounders FC became the second expansion team in MLS history to win the U.S. Open Cup, and in 2010 became the first ever MLS team to repeat as Open Cup champions. Fans selected the Sounders name for the club through an online poll in 2008, making the Seattle Sounders FC the third Seattle soccer team to bear the moniker. (more...)

Hello
I seem to remember you know your way around policies regarding photos. What do you think about ? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see multiple issues. Give me some time to dig up some info for you. I might be able to get to it tonight.


 * Concerns with the summary used with the image
 * Author: The file incorrectly names "ISM Palestine as the author. ISM Palestine is the source and an organization but a person took this photograph. It is clear from the number of different camera's used that it is not an individual's Flickr account. And they describe it their organization here. I would be curious to see if they actually have the right to release this image. I honestly assume they do but recommend contacting them.
 * Description: "Ni'lin 6th of Feb. Sniper shoots at demonstrators inside the village of Ni´lin". This is problematic for two reasons
 * We do not know if he is shooting at demonstrators. There is no muzzle flash, smoke, or blur caused by a recoil. He could be simply waiting to engage rioters. We do not know. Something likethis shows casings (so we know he is firing). However, the rest of that description is not verifiable. So I lean towards being skeptical since they are an organization with bias. I did find a source saying that the date corresponded with shooting. One interesting question, though, is how did the photographer get so close in that particular position (the wall is there but there was a clear shot if the soldier wanted) if the soldier was actively engaging targets.
 * Since we do not know if that particular soldier was firing on protesters, we run into issues with privacy rights since we state that he is. It is clear enough that an individual soldier could present evidence that it was him. Since editors in the topic area love the human rights so much, please see the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation."


 * License
 * ISM Palestine's Content Usage Policies states: "All original content is made available for free use in the service of advocating for Palestinian civil and human rights." We are not able to comply with their licensing if it can only be used to advocate Palestinian civil and human rights. I'm not sure if that is the intent of that sentence since it could also be read as it is their goal to provide that service only.


 * Concerns with use
 * The caption is problematic since the description is problematic (see above)
 * Its placement at the very top of the article is a serious POV concern. Is this the image that identifies the town? The article doesn't even discuss incidents on tat date does it?


 * My conclusion
 * I assume everything is OK licensing wise. I strongly encourage that someone contacts them to receive information on the author and to clarify if we can use the image with the intent of being neural. The image needs to be moved. The caption needs to be reworded since these activists are not RS and we cannot simply take their word for it. It would be nice if the article discussed the events of that day. It would also be nice if the article actually had some more information not related to politics but instead it as a populated place (alternatively the title could be changed to address that the scope is the clashes there).Cptnono (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The main things that bothered me is that we don't see him shooting nor do we see protesters, and that the source is either an individual or an activist group. I don't know enough about issues with photos to do anything about it, though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Creampie (sexual act)
I've just removed your last comment. It ended with straight abuse directed toward another editor. Please, could you just rephrase it, sticking to the issue (not those you're arguing with) and leave out the swearing. --Simon Speed (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Understandable.Cptnono (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply
Please reply to this: --Supreme Deliciousness(talk) 10:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the emails you have received, could you elaborate more in their nature? What of my edits and other users edits have been sent too you? Who are these people that have sent you this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No SD. This conversation is over. After the email I got last night everyone needs to chill out because I am livid.Cptnono (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is with 231 points, who leads Pool H.  (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, 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:WikiCupand 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 fromWikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Re 'Talk:Glenn Beck'
I think your recent posting has ended up in the wrong section - perhaps you should fix this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No. It is exactly where I wanted it. Cptnono (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

image
I dont think you noticed that the last image you reverted was from the main square, on  Land Day? Palobserver (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Warning
You have reverted Facial (sex act) twice, a further revert will be edit warring in defiance of WP:3RR and you will be subject to sanctions. You have been warned. Please do not edit war. You need to work this through with the other editor or open a discussion on the talk page. Herostratus (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I have not breeched 3rr. I also just sent you a warning. You need to stop being disruptive on these article in your personal crusade. Assisting a malicious IP who fails to use the talk page is completely inappropriate. I would love to see you blocked from editing that page so please revert again.Cptnono (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If consensus is (and has been) to use both illustrations, I support Cptnono's edit to keep it there. As part of BRD, the IP has boldly removed it, which was then reverted. The IP isn't discussing it on the talk page, which means he's just edit warring. Herostratus, if you support the IPs removal of the image, I'd suggest you start the article talk page discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for edit warring, as you did at Facial (sex act). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. I note that you've been asked plenty of times to stop edit warring, and I see your name come up a lot. Please note: 3RR is not a license to revert three times in a day. And you most definitely understand that: a month ago, you told someone who did exactly the same thing as you (three reverts in one day) "If you do not see what you did as edit warring then you should simply go away. End of story. No excuse. Fuck off my page." . You have not stopped edit warring despite requests, and have avoided blocks only by filibustering requests to you to do so. This block is a request for the future: please stop edit warring. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Even you can unblock if you realize you were wrong MtO. If you do not realize you were wrong then so be it. But I am taking this to ANI before or after since Herostratus is gaming the system again. And please back up your accusation that I edit war and filibuster to get out of it. I am uncivil but that was not the block reason and not applicable to this instance.Cptnono (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Argh... I suck at "calm and civil". But yeah, this block was partially based on that and I get it. I'll readdress the block and my frustrations with HS later when I am a little more calmed down (er... sober). Off to go help someone (yes, sometimes I do that). Thanks for the review, Coffee. And MtO, I completely disagree with your bock but want to bring it up to you later. I do see what you were getting at but think you were off. Cptnono (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

RM alert
There's a move request discussion going on at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority, with which you were previously involved. I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new discussion.  Night w   08:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:Tourism in Israel
First, it wasn't initially clear to me what that message on my talk page was talking about. The warning that you 'dittoed' was for vandalism that I didn't commit (the person who did it had cracked the key to my wireless network, which was weak, and I had to change it). Second, as far as the alleged 'discussion on the talk page' is concerned, I see no such thing. What are you talking about? If it is in the archives, it is not an ongoing discussion, and that comment about tags by Supreme Deliciousness did not even receive one response. Tourism in the West Bank belongs in the Tourism in the Palestinian territories article. Who is arguing whether or not the West Bank is part of Israel? Most maps don't show it as part of Israel, either.96.26.213.146 (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I just checked the talk page again, and I was wrong about the tag section on the talk page. Sorry, my mistake; it did receive a response, by none other than yourself. But it referenced this "discussion", and Supreme Deliciousness supposedly "know[s] where to find it". I, however, don't, and don't feel like searching. But it's just nonsense to argue that the West Bank is just Israel. Settlements are illegal, and they didn't make it any more part of Israel than it was before 1967.96.26.213.146 (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you to a certain extent. I think it needs a name change to "Tourism of Israel". Unfortunately, it has not been clear on the talk pages while the sources have been. Sources are sources.Cptnono (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify? Where is the discussion on the subject of the West Bank section staying? Also, the West Bank is not Israel. Who's arguing that it is, and where?96.26.213.146 (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that in previous discussions in the archives, you didn't really give arguments, other than comparing the Palestine and Golan region to the Pacific Northwest, and citing travel guides, basically saying that Israeli-controlled or occupied areas count as Israel or should be included anyway. It is not "politicization", to say that the West Bank and Golan are not part of Israel. Are you actually arguing that the areas that Israel occupied or occupies, such as Golan, count as part of Israel? That doesn't make sense. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Pacific Northwest? And yes, I did use those RSs. I wasn't the only one. Feel free to have this discussion on the article's talk page since this talk page isn't the place to find consensus.Cptnono (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

So
How many Palestinians have you met? Just curious. -asad (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Zero. If I recall correctly you said you were over there. If you are Palestinian I think it is great that you are editing since some first-hand knowledge can be useful in writing. Unfortunately, I asked a couple years ago for a single editor to say "I'm from here, and yes we call it the 'Massacre'". I was willing to drop my objection based on OR since there was the possibility I was wrong. I can't dispute the new sources based on our verifiability standards but there was ample reason to dispute the previous sources. If you are over there and have heard "Gaza Massacre" as a common title I will feel a little bad for holding up inclusion for so long.Cptnono (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you should check out الهجوم على قطاع غزة on the Arabic part of Wikipedia -- the second name listed in the article is " مجزرة غزة" which translates into the "Gaza Massacre". -asad (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

re Sources and ANI
Enh, Dan Savage is still not a good source for questions of fact, unless he's stepped up his game recently. He's still mainly an activist, and activists, whether on the left or right or wherever, are suspect. To the extent that he's not activist, he's not scholar or regular journalist. Being on the youtubes or whatever doesn't much affect that.

What is this about ANI? No one is going to ANI. I'm not sure what you are talking about, sorry. Herostratus (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good thing consensus disagreed with you.
 * In regards to a potential ANI, you have made two reverts of IPs disrupting the project over the last couple of weeks. I was wondering if you had any defense or if that was just the way it was. If there is a reasonable explanation I would love to hear it so thought it would be better form to bring it up to you first.Cptnono (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you should check out the page history. I actually have looked at that page and it looks like you haven't looked at the history of it since it was a dispute over there as well. So if you actually paid attention to the dispute you would have known that. So why does the Arabic Wikipedia have a conflict on this? Why were others over there who speak the same language disputing it? Why have you not verified it as a title? Still looks like a bunch of bullshit to me. It was not called the "Gaza Massacre" by Palestinians was it? I thought you were from there. Even you are not just saying what it is. Why not? Because it wasn't. Cptnono (talk) 06:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

On A-Class reviews
Thanks for the link Cptnono. I had been asking Ameer for more practical advice, as in what's missing from the article and what needs to altered/added before a review. It's just that it's my first attempt at an A-Class review. If you can offer any help on that, I'd appreciate it a lot. Cheers! --Sherif9282 (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review/ Barbara Howard (artist)
Thanks, Cptnono, for the good news and the kind words. I don't know who the person was who originally nominated this article for GA status (or why) but when the first reviewer failed it, I felt somehow personally slighted (I thought I had done a good job), so I made what I thought was a major effort to improve it, and then renominated it. It was humbling to have you (as the second reviewer) point out all the many things that were still wrong with it! However, you were sufficiently supportive to keep me from giving up entirely and your always helpful suggestions showed me that improvements were still possible. Thanks for hanging in. This GA status is as much your work as mine. Wardsislander (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 April newsletter
Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to and  who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, 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 19:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Lower alpha footnotes
 Imzadi 1979  →   22:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Steve Zakuani GA review
Hey, I wanted you to know that I added your name to the GA nom. I wanted to make sure you got credit for your work on this article (earlier, and more recently). Hopefully this counts for the WikiCup. Thanks for your work on this article. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 18:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks dude! Unfortunately I got eliminated after ending the last round 4pts short! I thought I was safe and slacked. It was fun times still. Cptnono (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for going missing in action after nominating this article for GA. We're trying to sell our home right now and it's getting pretty hectic. Hopefully I'll be able to put more time into the article this weekend or next. Thanks again for your help with this nomination. I expect someone will start reviewing it this week or next. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 15:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good luck! I hope it is for the best of reasons.Cptnono (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Falafel
Hello. I have asked, more than once, several questions of you at the talk page of falafel. Could you please answer those questions? Thank you, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Been a little busy IRL and keeping you inline since your return (how has no one else dragged you to AE yet?) is not a priority. Last time I checked you asked why I mentioned legality. I clarified. I'll take a look in the next day to keep things on course though.Cptnono (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 May newsletter
We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by, and  respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.

A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, 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 23:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

AWB
Thank you I'm happy to help. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

re "Assisting in disruption again?"
I'm sorry, could you be more specific about what article or incident you refer to? If I "ignored IP vandalism", the article in question may just not be on my watchlist or something, maybe? Herostratus (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I don't believe you. AGF only goes so far. You have intentionally assisted or ignored vandalism.Cptnono (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

A/E
You said you thought AgadaUrbanit was "actively discussing a perennial request without being a jerk". I asked whether you honestly thought AgadaUrbanit wasn't being a jerk in that discussion. I didn't call AgadaUrbanit a jerk.

I will remove my comment about manure. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to explain it to me. I got your intent so it didn't hurt my feelings. Those comments still can be taken offensively by others though. Cptnono (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

AE
WP:AE <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't even bother to read you statement there. An interaction ban is not a horrible idea but it is still a waste of time. Stop starting problems and you won't get a hard time from me. But I gather from the responses (which were surprisingly understandable). I am only a jerk when hammed. You are pushing a POV stoned or sober it looks like. I won't say "bye" since it is only temporary.Cptnono (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahh, another glorious victory! I actually made it out to the game against the Red Bulls - loved Levesque pick-pocketing the keeper! Regarding the AE case, shrug. I don't think it reflects badly on our task force, since it's completely unrelated. I think an interaction ban isn't a bad idea, as I explained in my AE comment, but hopefully it doesn't cause more headaches than it solves. ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 23:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Banned from interacting with Nableezy

 * Cptnono: It would also be a very good choice if you do not ever edit when intoxicated. Cf. No angry mastodons. Regards, AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 22:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Booze had nothing to do with it. I work on GAs while drunk. It is a good hobby. That is why the interaction ban is not a bad idea since that one aspect was the only problem. I would say I appreciate your opinion but really it just makes me vomit with rage. Oh oops... that was just the lager. (That was supposed to be silly and not mean by the way)Cptnono (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Death
Howdy. In an effor to be civil, I wanted to reply to your accusation that my removal of your tags was 'sneaky'. It wasn't. I waited a few days to see if there would be a flood of activity to honor them, but there wasn't any. I happen to disagree with you that the tags are necessary. However, I do agree with you that there is an oversaturation of 'genre' junk in the lede that can be removed, and I pledge to do it - just give me a few days. On the neutrality issue, I do completely disagree and suggest you haul in an admin if you think it has merit. The regular writers have done their best to use bona fide secondary sources, and to claim it reads like a fanboy page is rather condescending. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to stay civil then I would love to work with you on improving the article. But you haven't really addressed the issues yet. Since some time has passed maybe things are cooler and you can reread my comments and we can go from there. The tag says the neutrality is disputed (that was originally the least of my concerns). But there is a dispute and an admin won;t be able to change that. We can make the dispute go away by addressing the issues though.Cptnono (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - let's work together on it. Have a good weekend. A Sniper (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 June newsletter
We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by, claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by , who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by, who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank and  for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.

Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. 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 23:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations
YES! That makes me even hungrier for bacon. They aren't legal but that doesn't stop us. VICTORY! Hope your day is going great.
 * We declare independence. Kind of random video link ;) Stay well. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Check out www.  removethisbigblank     vbs.tv/watch/drunk-history/ben-franklin-continued (think it is black listed due to spam)Cptnono (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Duwamish bridge
According to this source, War Dept. gave notice of changes needed on June 1, 1909 for NP RR bridge over west Duwamish Waterway. Earlier than 1912 if this is your bridge. (I guess this is the Eng. book you found. Interesting design!) Will return if I find something better. (Found nothing at historylink.org) Twang (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC) [back] Toughie! no date found. Bridge span 160 ft. Two 25 HP DC motors. Flickr photos. May have been first Strauss heel-trunion bridge. Abandoned. Twang (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Interesting search. On the 1909 thing: a couple of places said that NP's first bridge was a trestle; didn't see any other mention of its location, so War Dept. might have meant it. Other thoughts: there were lots of engineering mags by that time, so the 1912 articles might have covered it soon after it was built. Note Strauss applied for a 2nd patent in 1908 that took a couple of years (and took the city to court over using one without a license). Amazing that with all the rail-buff sites noone seems to have a date. Good luck! Twang (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Facial
I wasn't being malicious. I restored captions that make as much sense as the one you restored. As I wrote in my edit summary on June 16 -- describing her as "unsmiling" is such a "duh!" caption that one might as well describe her as "brown-haired". See the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I just figured something out: You think I showed up at that article to stir trouble because of our differences at Israel- and Palestine-related articles, don't you? My first edit at Facial was in November 2007, before you were a registered editor. While I sometimes check other editors' contribution histories in accordance with policy, I would never hound somebody just to annoy them.

In any event, I'm very sorry that I've caused you so much upset. It's clear that the word "unsmiling" is very significant to you, although I can't understand why. I won't change the caption again, although I may start a new discussion in the coming weeks to see if consensus has changed since December.

Good night. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Re. my suggestions on the "Talk:Gaza War" page
On a previous occasion, whilst I was serving a 3 week ban on editing the "Gaza War" article, I made several suggestions on the talk page which where accepted by yourself and other editors. However on that occasion nobody else actually made the edits they had agreed with. On that occasion, out of frustration and ignorance about how Wiki bans worked, I made the edits myself and consequently received an indefinite ban (which, you may recall, I am still serving) on editing articles broadly related to the Arab/Israel conflict. I have no intention of committing the same error a second time, and am consequently unable to act on your suggestion to "copy edit" or "Paist" material into the article. Prehaps, since you appear to agree with my proposals, you would be good enough to consider making these edits yourself? Prunesqualor  billets_doux  14:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please reread my comment above, and then reread your responses on my talk page here which you decided to alter to this and later added this (in which you allude to your previously retracted "I don't like you" comment). Frankly I think your responses where rather over the top. However I must accept some responsibility here because I seem to have misinterpreted your comment on the Gaza War talk page which sparked all of this. I had interpreted "Suggest a copy edit and it can be pasted in" as short hand for "I Suggest a copy edit and it can be pasted in" (rather dumb prehaps but an honest mistake). I apologise for jumping to the wrong conclusion (ie that that you where trying to entice me into making illegal edits) however this bad faith assumption was not helped by you recent habit of responding once to a suggestion I make on the talk page and then giving me the cold shoulder when I try to continue the debate. I don't think your characterisation of me as a "trouble maker" was fair – in October last year, I broke the 3rr rule on one occasion, and made 3 edits (which had broad consensus on the talk page) when I should have waited 3 weeks to do so. Dose that really warrant labelling me as a "a trouble maker"? Clearly we have quite different POVs regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict, and will probably never be best chums, but I am more than happy to let bygones be bygones re. our previous acrimonious encounters, and to try to work productively with you on the project Prunesqualor   billets_doux  12:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * PS we do seem to have at least one thing in common in that we are both, prehaps overly, fond of a beer or two (or ten) Prunesqualor   billets_doux  12:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My edit suggestions, re. booby trap info in the "Gaza War" article are now on the talk page, and (pending your agreement/approval) I hope you will be able to perform these edits without too much trouble. Thanks for your time Prunesqualor   billets_doux  23:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Further response on Talk:Gaza War Prunesqualor   billets_doux  09:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC/U
Maybe I let him off the hook too quickly yesterday. What do you think? Calling another editor an ass is something I wouldn't dream of being able to get away with, and I literally shudder to think what would happen if you ever called an editor in I/P an ass. But the sad part is that it only confirmed the problem that I initially started that discussion to address with him one-on-one (before his team of defense attorneys showed up). Tell me if you feel there's a case to be made and if you'd be on-board with it or if you think it'll be a vain effort at this stage, based on your experience.—Biosketch (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Steve Zakuani GA review
I can't find any sources for the USOC stats in this article. I thought I would find them in the media guide, but no such luck. I can't figure out how to remove the USOC and CCL from the stats table, but it appears that's all that needs to be done to pass the article. Can you help? --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 07:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hope you are fine
Cptnono, I hope you are fine, and I will still see you around. In any case good luck to you in everything you are up to. It was great to know you! Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Everything is well enough. I was really ticked off last night when I found out that I was not going to be able to fly out to Columbus for Newcastle's US tour but the main reason for the semi tag is explained below. I noticed that my time on Wikipedia is so much less that I wanted to give people a heads up that an extra message here or an email might be needed to get my attention. I will surely be checking my watchlist every day or three but I have been on so much less lately. Cptnono (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
I hope you won't be completely out of commission in your semi-retirement. The SSFC task force wouldn't be the same without you. I admit I've been a lot less active lately due to more work, moving homes, and some other family stuff. I'm hoping to ramp back up in the next few months, especially if I have another cup final article to work on (Go Sounders!). Take care and I hope all is well for you in real life. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 05:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, dude! The semi-retirement tag is because I noticed that I missed a couple commitments because my time in Wikipedia has been halved (I was planning on doing an A class review for a guy like 2 months ago and totally ignored it). I'm not going anywhere but felt like I wanted to throw it up there since I am not around as much as I was 6 months ago. Cptnono (talk) 06:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And nice work taking the reigns on that GA. I love Zak and it is cool to see the article at GA now. Cptnono (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are (Pool A, 189 points) and  (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from ) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from ). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!

There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. 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 11:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Your message
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are always fantastic. At least I am honest with you in letting you know that people think you are a poor admin who is too involved to do anything but edit in the topic area. But please use your tools and be a jerkoff more since you are under a microscope. Better to be in the know, right? And when you stop calling other's shitty names I will stop doing it as well. Cptnono (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Opinion on RS for Celtic F.C. supporters
Hi Cptnono. I was wondering if you could lend your opinion here on reliable sources for Celtic F.C. supporters if you have time as you've lent a hand on a similar subject before. ThanksMattun0211 (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh no. I just spent 10 min at a match tonight yelling at a Celtic supporter about his silly dialect and support for a garbage team. I'll try to be neutral. "**** THEM ALL LET THEM COME... LET THEM COME... LET THEM COME" (wasn't even an SPL match but they just piss me off so much)Cptnono (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Cheers - despite everything you managed a neutral input ;) Mattun0211 (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And despite everything: Celtic is world class. The fans that made it out to Seattle (2003 I think?) congregated at the Owl & Thistle (local bar) with fans from here and rocked the joint. Seattle fanbase for sure. No doubt that it is worldwide.Cptnono (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Thought of you while reading this a couple weeks ago
The idea of parallel states ("in which Jews and Arabs would owe their allegiance to separate parliaments but share a single territory and army") is interesting, but I think it would be an administrative nightmare. If I read this correctly, the suggested breakdown is based on religion and ethnicity, not geographic location. So an Arab living in Tel Aviv would be governed by an Arab parliament (and Arab laws), while the Jewish next-door-neighbor would be governed by a Jewish parliament (and Jewish laws)? What would happen if their laws differed, or contradicted each other? Who determines land ownership rules and building rights? Which parliament would command the military? I suspect that the parallel states solution would have similar "separate is not equal" problems as segregation had in the United States. Imagine if the result of the civil rights movement in the United States hadn't been integration, but instead further segregation resulting in two governments - one for blacks, and one for whites - with a shared military and territory for both. I think it would have been highly unlikely that both governments would be equal, and you would have similar administrative headaches.

I'm still somewhat torn over whether the best solution is a one-state solution or a two-state solution, but I also doubt that either side has the willpower or the motivation to come to an agreement anytime soon. Israel has very little short term incentive to come to any sort of deal on the issue, and lacks long term vision. The Palestinians have very little short term bargaining power, and can only bootstrap themselves so far. My feelings at the moment are that it would actually be best for the United States to not veto the Palestinian UN bid of statehood in September, as a way to just sort of throw the kids into the pool so that they learn to swim together, but I don't think the United States has the political willpower to make a move that bold. ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 19:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is a bad idea as well. It sounds like nuts on both sides would make it even worse.
 * Not sure about the vote. I have read contradictory information on how important it actually is. I think it would be interesting to see the US not veto but it won't happen. Cptnono (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:


 * , Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
 * , Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
 * , Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
 * , the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
 * , the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists,, , , , , and. Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate. The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.

A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. 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 23:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal Attack
I don't care what your issue is with User:Cerejota but please refrain from making personal attacks as you did at User talk:Cerejota. Comment on the content, not the contributor. --Mrmatiko (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The guy should not have been condescending. Cptnono (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey
Hey, just saw your edit of 2011 USOC final. Haven't crossed paths with you much. If you'll be online over the next couple of days, I was wondering if you'd mind reviewing this and make any changes/tweaks you think should be made. I plan to nominate it at WP:TFAR the next time the TFA directors schedule a swath of articles (probably early next week). I'm waiting because it's kind of a longshot with only one point (and a weak one at that), but I figure it's worth a try. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 02:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We're gonna win the f****** Open Cup... Again! Your picture at Starfire against LA made me livid since I actually missed that match.
 * In regards to the review: I am still not sure how to handle the name of the stadium (it was Qwest at the time but I think everything gets switched over prose wise to CenturyLink). Would be great for the day since people have some footy fever with the intl break over here and the Euro qualifying over there.
 * Nice work on the most recent final article. Consider ditching the quote box since it would work fine in prose and the image in that section takes up so much space. Throw that script in your java page since it makes dashes easier. Coding dashes is looked down upon for some reason and the dash script makes it super easy.
 * If I recall, you don't enjoy a tasty refreshing beverage after a game. But I will enjoy a sparkling water with you at the Hawk's Nest on Oct 4th after we 3peat.
 * Always a pleasure to run into you on Wikipedia and I hope life is treating you well. Cptnono (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Woops, I missed that you'd replied to this. I put together a group of 41 people(!) from work to go to the open cup final, so I probably won't be able to meet you after for a drink.
 * As for the review, I think it's appropriate to use Qwest instead of CenturyLink because the article is about a specific event and that's what the stadium was called when the event took place. Maybe I should put in parenthesis "now CenturyLink Field" or something like that.
 * I like the quote boxes when there aren't many images in the article. If I had more images, I definitely think the quotes should move into the prose.  Without pictures, I think the quoteboxes make the article look a little less drab for the reader. Obviously that's a personal opinion though and not part of the MOS. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 15:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I nominated the 2010 USOC final for TFA here. If you get time in the next few days, please add your support.  It'll need it I think.  Very low points. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 15:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Great news! It's been scheduled] to appear on the main page on October 4th. Thank you for your supporting vote. Since there is no archive for WP:TFAR I archive WP:SSFC related articles here. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 16:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your support at my latest AE. Too bad it didn't work out as I hoped. Wikifan Be nice 10:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Care to tell me what you are talking about
'The page was locked due to edit warring. If you revert again you will be edit warring and someone like me will be seeking your block. Instead, follow the dispute resolution process. I recommend that an admin gives you a heads up on the additional scrutiny editors are under in this topic area based on a history of disruptive editing. I feel that I cannot give you the proper advice since you choose to not listen and I do not have the patience do deal with you'. I believe this is from you. I don't see any reference, so have no way to know what page you are referring to, but if it is Itamar attack, than simply reading what I have written would already tell you what I intend to do. I recommend that you check before you give advice, and make it clear what you are writing about. I do not have the patience to deal with you otherwise.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Again it seems you cannot bother to tell me what you are writing about. My name does not appear on the page you gave a link to, and so you are wasting my time with issues that do not apply to me. Why are you doing this?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct
Thanks for chiming in in the brief time they left my complaint up at AN/I. Yes, you are correct...Admins should never use admin tools against anyone they have had a content dispute with. Best wishes.--MONGO 04:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You are cordially invited...
to a discussion at Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society/Archives/01/2012 if you're interested. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:30, 25 September 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 15:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Request for clarification
Your request for clarification has been closed. For the definition of "broadly construed", please refer to the arbitrators' comments. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 September newsletter
We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by, and , all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.

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 12:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Death
Hello, why you removed the book section from Death article, it has reliable sources, supported by the Chuck himself and probabely the only book written about him when he was alive, please do not remove it again. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I plan on removing it again. The reasoning is on the talk page.Cptnono (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I edited the section, feel free to edit it if you think its not nuetral, it deserve to be in the article due to reliable sources and Chuck's words about it. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don;t talk to me here, go see the talk page.Cptnono (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * ok, check the talk page I added a video to back me up. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Seattle Sounders redirect discussion
I have provided some page view stats regarding your comments about what readers are most likely to be looking for on Talk:Seattle Sounders. Cheers, Number   5  7  08:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?
A bit harsh, no? Clicked the wrong button?-- Terrillja talk  15:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It was probably more out of line with our guidelines and MoS than actual vandalism. But using capslock while disregarding sources is enough for me to not feel too bad about labeling it vandalism. Cptnono (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 October newsletter
The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is, who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009) and  (2010). The final standings were as follows:



Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.


 * The Featured Article Award:, for his performance in round 2. matched the score, but Casliber won the tiebreaker.
 * The Good Article Award:, for his performance in round 4.
 * The Featured List Award:, for his performance in round 4. matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
 * The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics):, for his performance in round 3.
 * The Did You Know Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The In the News Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews):, for his performance in round 3.

No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.

Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 WikiCup participation


It was good to have you on board this time around- we hope you enjoyed the competition! In case you are interested, signups for next year are open. Thanks, J Milburn and The ed17 20:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Walken
Awww, that's disappointing but I understand your reasoning, especially about the copyvio stuff. I wasn't too sure myself about the reliability of YT in this case, obviously, but I hated seeing all those names with "citation needed" after every single one. It bothered me, I'm not sure why. I probably should have done in the first place what you eventually did. Thanks for letting me know you were taking them out.

p.s. what are your thoughts on removing that first paragraph in the "Popularity and Imitators" section? I asked on the Walken talkpage but so far have no takers. --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:ELNO
Read it before being a dickhead. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Warning
I reverted your vandalism to User:William M. Connolley that you did in. Don't do that again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ditto re this edit to the same user's talk page. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't let anything stop you!

 * Holy shit. That is next to the 9lb Hammer (Airport S and Vale S). Bar full of train kids that turns into a biker haunt at night. Also has a rotating selection of pinball and arcade games. And if you turn around from where that picture is taken, there is a punk club. (Airport S and Doris S). Thanks for making me hungry, dude!
 * What a surprise, 9lb Hammer @ Georgetown. There is always an oven roasted turkey if you're hungry. Happy Thanksgiving! Stay well. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice. A free Palestine protest dropped by my bus stop after a handful of thirst quenching beverages the other day. I kept my hammer in my toolbox.

Deletion/Bradden Inman
With regards to the Bradden Inman deletion, I should mention that I use the Twinkle add-on to nominate pages for deletion and it's the one that notifies users about deletion discussions. However, in this particular case, I don't think it worked properly since this is the second message I receive with regards to that particular deletion about failing to follow procedure. I apologize for that, I guess I should manually checked to see if it did everything it was supposed to. I've just never had any problems with it in the past so I didn't really think of doing that. Anyways, hopefully there's no hard feelings, I definitely wasn't looking to keep you or any other editor out of the loop. Take care. TonyStarks (talk) 10:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Wait for it...Cptnono (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

mmmmm I quote, "You are welcome to provide sources and edit the article. That is the point of Wikipedia and no one would object. Fuck your face palm, though. See: Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Then feel like a pretentious jerk for facepalming something you could have fixed yourself if you were not so lazy. Cptnono (talk) 07:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)"

Most original contributors prefer to edit their own material after a critique; this is why I did not edit your contribution. As for your language and good humour, I shall pass. 85.78.91.138 (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Your point?
Nazi chicks were also hot. Just because they are hot does not mean they aren't evil anti-Semitic subhumans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecleverscreenname (talk • contribs) 09:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot comment on arms that look like sausages since it would be a BLP violation. But I can comment on Nazi chicks, black chicks, Persian chicks, ginger chicks, chicks with cleft lips (damn that is an easy fix that everyone in the free world should support), crack whores, MILFs, and God knows what else is under the skirt. I don't discriminate when it comes to pretty girls. And we should also be careful about being sexist.

Curious
Why did 4chan have it out for you? Your protection logs were 6 long lines of my history so how could I not get curious? Alatari (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am under the impression that it was based off making a neutral/almost-supporting comment about a pro-Palestinian editor instead of the usual.Cptnono (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

4chan is anti-Palestine? I got the impression they were anarchists and freedom supporters so now I'm confused. That was an excellent photo you had up; when and where was it taken? Alatari (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is easy to incite a crowd regardless of the politics involved. 4chan also does not have any politics. Less than a handful of individuals joined the "raid" but someone attempted to start one. The picture was found on Flickr. It is amazing what you can do with the Flickr2commons bot. The file should have the info you are looking for. Cptnono (talk) 05:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So now I wonder if it was you telling a 15 yo boy not to say a girl looks 'rapable' like that one edit summary said, that you thought a Palestinian was 'hawt' or that Palestinians 'shouldn't' protest Israel or that Israel 'sucks'... I got in a confrontation in an online game with some young dude because of the 'rape' angle and me saying it's never OK to talk about rape in a positive manner so my money's on that.  Anyway, hold tuff!  Alatari (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Georgetown Brewing Company


A tag has been placed on Georgetown Brewing Company requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mt king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  04:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What's your favorite thing about Georgetown Brewing Company? Probably oversized operable sliding doors design of their new office. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

AE
The recent AE thread concerning yourself and Nableezy has been closed. This is not a formal enforcement action, but the consensus was that you should be advised to take greater care to avoid Nableezy in accordance with your interaction ban—in particular, please take care, where practical, to avoid articles where he is active and take particular care not to get into edit wars in which he has been involved. Again, this is not an enforcement action, but you should consider yourself so advised as of this message. Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the carefully worded message.Cptnono (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Israel/Palestine RFC
I note your opposition to my proposed process at Wikipedia:Binding RFCs. Are you able to link me to the RFC that you mentioned so I can look over it? I note that my idea would work vastly different to a conventional RFC and be closed by more than one editor, so a consensus among them would be required (that the consensus of the RFC is indeed X or Y) which I feel may address some of your concerns, but I would like to see your example so I can address it. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 07:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

AE
WP:AE <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

AE
Regarding your response: Nableezy made a response to me and I answered.

I looked at the edit history there and I don't see that he directed anything at your or mentioned you. Could you point it out? --WGFinley (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quick response. I will answer over at AE. Cptnono (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you failed to sign the comment made on the talk page of Arab citizens of Israel?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume it was because I was in Origin at the same time and ~ is used to activate my mic. The key cannot be used for other purposes while the program is running. I was kind of pissed when i realized that and switched it to the side mouse button. I would ask you if there was a reason you were so interested but I am not going to be passive aggressive and assume the worst like you and just come out and say it: Don;t bother me with BS on my talk page just because you jump to conclusions. See how easy it was to be open and to the point?Cptnono (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I came off as being accusatory, but it is a fair concern as some people do have the odd notion that one small omission can keep a wrong act from being noticed and sometimes it does actually work. However, your explanation above seems reasonable.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, it is infinity more interesting to be contrary... until you turn into a crackpot conspiracy theorist or know-it-all. Consider changing your general disposition on life. Admittedly, I have combed through histories on Wikipedia. The end result has not been to my liking and it was a waste of time. I want to tell you to "grow up" only because I cannot think of a more polite way to say it. I hope that someone else can word it better so that you will understand. Cptnono (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

AE
Might as well.

Happy holidays everyone. I won't bother posting something about my family or work or what the shit else since Wikipedia is not Facebook. But I will remind you all to tip your bartender and cabbie extra on nights like tonight (even if their religion makes them boring). Merry Christmas and have a fun and safe New Year's. Cptnono (talk) 10:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)