User talk:Fetchcomms/Archive 18

Please use this to leave me a new message:

Psst!
- Dwayne  was here! &#9835; 02:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

are you here?
75.57.242.120 (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sort of. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of ACC tool users' pledge
ACC tool users' pledge, a page that you may have interest in (as you participated in deletion discussions on a template related to this page), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:ACC tool users' pledge and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of ACC tool users' pledge during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  10:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Another FYI about Perseus/Highspeedrailguy
Now he's SEPTActaMTA8235, and he's given you a message at simple:User talk:Fetchcomms, expressing his plan to connect the renamed account to en. I believe this is in violation of WP:SOCK because MuZemike blocked him for "Abusing multiple accounts". If I'm not mistaken, he is considered a sock here, so if he comes over, he should be blocked. Goodvac (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, discussing there. Thanks for the note, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  23:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

David Alexander (author)
Hi. The article was deleted by Ponyo and salted by me. Neither of us seem to think it is substantially different from the deleted version, despite the attempt to add references using ISBN numbers and author papers(!). Could you explain why you believe it is substantially different? Thanks. --rgpk (comment) 21:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The AfD'd version had no references at all, and only one jumbled body section; see here. I could not find any more recent AfD, so I don't think G4 would apply. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  22:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, this one doesn't have any references either. Links to a website run by the person and to an article written by the Alexander. ISBN and ASIN numbers are not references. And author's papers??? Nope, I see no references but rather an attempt to make it appear as if there are references. The text is pretty much the same as well. --rgpk (comment) 22:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's better than nothing, and it's an attempt—I'm working with the author via OTRS. I'd say the text is still different enough to pass G4, but if you want to AfD it, go ahead. I have my doubts about his notability, but I'm trying to AGF here. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  22:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I think you should have checked, or at least dropped a note on ponyo or my talk page but no worries. --rgpk (comment) 13:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just popping in to note that in all likelihood I'm going to put together a second AfD on this. Either that or I'm going to stub the hell out of it by removing all of the unsourced quotes and puffery. If there any specific non-private OTRS details that I should be aware of before doing so, just let me know and I will work around them. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  13:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think stubbing might work—it might poke the author into adding better sources or something. If possible, could you wait on an AfD for a week or so; if the author doesn't respond to me or keep working on the page, then go ahead. Thanks, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  16:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I made the remark above prior to checking my watchlist - the article is already at AfD (but not by me). We'll see how it plays out, and if it is kept I will clean it up as best I can. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: WP:FPOC
I will be busy until Friday. If I forget by Friday, please remind me again. (I wish user talk page could have a feature like email where I can check off read message/section and label them as unread) OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. I did forget about it. OhanaUnitedTalk page</b> 04:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User:P00p™
Could you take a look at User: P00p™. I think his/her username is against the username policy. I think a admin. needs to take a look at this. Talk to me on my user page. Jamison Lofthouse (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * User was blocked indefinitely just two minutes before your post. Goodvac (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Report them here, for future reference. Only report blatant violations. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

AFD closures
Can you clarify your question on my RFA please? –BuickCenturyDriver 18:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how best to clarify it, but here goes:


 * Article X is AfD'd.
 * Six users !vote to merge and then delete the article because it's just plain horrible—they say that the page history contains too much crap.
 * Two users say to merge, and didn't comment on deletion. No one says keep or redirect or anything else.
 * So what do you do regarding this consensus (or lack thereof, if you feel there is none)? / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Verify the sources, voters reputations and close accordingly. If I'm stilll unsure, I'd probably ask another admin for review.  –BuickCenturyDriver 02:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the "accordingly" going to be (assume there are no sources, all voters are legit users, etc.)? / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If all votes are legit, I'd probably lean towards deleting and redirecting since your "bad" article has no sources. According to what you said, only two editors requested a merge without deletion.  I'd have to see an AFD like the one you're talking about becasue WP is not democracy so you can't judge an AFD by the amount of votes.  Therefore, if you want to write the simulated AFD and have me judge it by all means.  –BuickCenturyDriver 02:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your answer seems OK, although I was mainly looking for "no, because merging and then deleting is a violation of copyright due to loss of attribution" (after someone brought up something regarding cut/paste moves. No worries, redirection after deletion is perfectly legal :) / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

YGM
EBE123 talkContribs 21:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Love the Cat :o)
... on your user page. That's a gorgeous animal :o) Pesky  ( talk ) 18:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ante Gotovina
I was a bit puzzled by this edit under the edit summary "ce". Fainites barley scribs 15:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Editing fail. I was trying to add a comma in, I think, and somehow I must have accidentally wiped out most of the article without noticing. Thanks for telling me—no one bothered to re-add that comma back after reverting :) / ƒETCH COMMS  /  19:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Success! Fainites barley scribs 19:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy tag
I'm not sure who to take this to, but as you were doing something with a hangon tag earlier, I thought I'd land it on you. On the CSD tag, there's the following text: "clicking the button below will take you to the talk page where will find a pre-formatted place to explain why you believe this template should not be deleted.". This is slightly up the creek. First, it should say 'where you will find', and secondly, it's on articles and not just templates. I've never found where these things live when they're not in use - I just call them up with magic words in curly brackets - so I can't correct it (even if I am allowed to...). Over to you... Peridon (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you want, but I think I fixed it :) / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's better. This was the first time I'd actually read that bit slowly, knowing what it would say anyway. (That's always the problem when you're proof-reading your own stuff - you know what it should say and don't notice that it doesn't.) Cheers. Peridon (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Your ANI comment
I do not find it nice that you label me as incompetent at ANI. Before you make evaluations of other users like this, please review the contribs fully.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Posting a myriad of diffs now. Before you claim I have not fully reviewed your diffs, please consider the shocking possibility that—I have! / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You may want to see my edits at WQA and the way I handle disputes w/o being involved in them. You clearly have not fully reviewed my edits. I do not need diffs to prove that.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C) 03:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Labeling me as childish is not appreciated at all. It verges on the edge of a NPA violation - ironically, a WQA thread I settled dealed with very similar comments to that.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * lmfao. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you make another comment like that I will post this as a violation in the ANI thread. That was surely a personal attack.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking purely as an old person: If you're in a hole, stop digging. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * moar than a barrel of idiots ;) 125.162.150.88 (talk) 11:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA2011
Hi Fetch. Thank you  for  chiming  in. When I originally started this reform project  in  my  user space last  month, I  never dreamed that  it would gain  so  much  impetus. I follow your comments around the board intently and am  always impressed by  what  you  have to  say. I hope you  will  continue to  contribute to  this reform  project, and perhaps if you  are interested in  the items of reform that  are under current  discussion, you  might  like to  join  its task force, time permitting of course. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This looks interesting -- it's great to see some progress here. – SJ<font style="color:#f90;"> + 08:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Citation archiving
Hello Fetch, your concern noted at the Archived citations RFC has been responded to. Can you check to see if you still have a problem with the interface?

Regards, – SJ<font style="color:#f90;"> + 08:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, I totally forgot to check back at that RfC. New comments posted there. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  16:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Fetchcomms/hangon.js
Hey Fetchcomms. The javascript solution is working great. I have one more tweak to suggest. In, I think "article" should be changed to  or if that doesn't make sense here, then to "page". Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Related note: See User talk:MSGJ.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think templates or parserfunctions work in edit summaries, so we'll have to go with "page". Thanks for reminding me about that, I forgot about the edit summary stuff. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

lmfao

 * Thanks! :) / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the tag
I wondered why the display had suddenly gone all funny :)  Roger Davies  talk 15:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Me, too ;) / ƒETCH COMMS  /  15:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete this page for me...
RfA reform 2011/Initiate the clerk idea immediately as I am withdrawing the RfC. <font face="times new roman"> maucho eagle   00:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have deleted it (beat you to it, Fetchcomms). <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C) 01:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dangit, a few seconds too late! Thanks Eagles247, and MauchoEagle, db-g7 exists for a reason :). At any rate, it's usually not a good idea to start an RfC while discussion is still ongoing on how to develop a proposal, so putting that RfC up would have caused a bit of a discussion mess. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do, and could you take a look at and see what actions need to be taken. <font face="times new roman"> maucho  eagle   01:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you try talking to that user? All I see are some boilerplate warnings and no evidence of explaining the problem or asking who Justin J. Cairns is. Just because it looks like a joke doesn't mean we should be uncommunicative. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 22 April 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Change of article title
Could you possibly change the page currently titled "Katie Gallagher (artist)" to "Katie Gallagher (fashion designer)"? "Artist" does not categorize her properly. I am not sure of how to do it. I have a good set of references upon which I can firm up notability and expand the article. Thank you for your help. Doc2234 (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. For how to retitle a page, see this guide. Cheers, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Doc2234 (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Rubytuesdaysrocks
Hi Fetchcomms. I found you through the recent changes log. Would you put an end to this disruption? The AIV report, posted 30 minutes ago by, has not received a response. See this diff for example. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must have just stopped for supper! / ƒETCH COMMS  /  22:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's okay. The sock was blocked a few minutes after I posted here. I hope you enjoyed your supper. ;) Cunard (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of number-one music downloads of 2010 (Canada) (2nd nomination)
Hi fetchcomms. Regarding this close, you've referred to "this article" but it was actually two articles that were were up for deletion, and you've left the tag on List of number-one digital songs of 2011 (Canada). Usually I would just remove the AfD tag from the second article myself (and add the oldafdfull template to the talk page), but in this case I thought I'd bring it to your attention in case you wanted to make the closing statement more precise. Thanks much. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 04:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops, totally did not notice that. It blended right in with the search links. Thanks for the note—everything taken care of now, I think. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  04:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Today's Rfa
Please note that the Rfa candidate's activity levels have been reasonable since 2009, as New York Brad kindly noted on my talk page. I have redacted my remarks accordingly. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 00:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Giannis Chadzivasilis
Hi Fetchcomms I am trying to figure out why you deleted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Giannis Chadzivasilis, it looks like a perfectly valid WP:AFC contribution. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The user had changed it to a "real" talk page (with WikiProject banners and such), moving the content to the actual WP: page (instead of WT:). They then blanked that page, and another admin deleted it as G7, so I went off the same assumption that they didn't want to submit the content any more, as they didn't re-add it back to the talk page. As there's no point in keeping around WikiProject banners in orphaned project talkspace, another user MfD'd it, and I just went ahead and speedy-deleted it as G8. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  16:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

New Assessment for article improvements with PPI
hi Fetchcomms, Another assessment round is posted. This round is the follow-up to the previous assessment, so it should reflect some big improvements to the articles. WP:USPP Post Assessment 2.1 There is a group of about 25 subject matter experts who are assessing, and last week I sent them a tutorial video on how to leave comments on talk pages. So if you see any newcomers on the discussion pages, please help me welcome them. You are doing a really amazing job, in fact, here at WMF, we are using your ratings as the “gold standard” to test the Article Feedback Tool and see how well it works. I will be presenting lots of research in the coming months. Best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

ED
Well Fetchcomms, thanks for the link. I've developed an entirely new level of disgust for humanity and the internet. I'd never looked at ED before, and I guess I never will again. And in regards to your parenthetic comment, yes, isn't that sort of stuff illegal? Keep the faith, Drmies (talk) 15:14, 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 19:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Paige St. John
The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__