User talk:Guerillero/Archives/2015/May

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Mailcall
Bishonen &#124; talk 09:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC).

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter
The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus. Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
 * was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
 * took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
 * worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! , and  16:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request
Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

See my talk page...
I put a comment on my talk page addressing your concern, and you will be happy to know that I am more sympathetic to the mainstram perspective than some may think. Please read my comments there. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Appeal on Dennis L. Montgomery full protection.
Consider this an appeal of full protection on Dennis_L._Montgomery.

I think the combination of 1 year full-protection and stubifying the article was disproportionate, for the following reasons: So, I think it's appropriate for you to move the protection level down to semi-protect, at most. Cinteotl (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Three or four users were edit warring in the article on Feb 15. A BLP Noticeboard entry on the page was posted near the end of the day, on Feb 15.
 * Callanecc responded, 28 minutes later, by full protecting the page for 1 week.
 * 4 days later, with no intervening disruption, you stubified and full-protected the article for 1 year.
 * I checked on Callanecc's user talk page, and it doesn't appear that you discussed this modification with him. If this action was taken under discretionary sanctions (as you indicated it was), then you probably shouldn't have modified his action without his explicit prior consent. (See )
 * I can find no discussion by you of your actions at WP:AE (Other than your log entry.) Given that your actions were likely to be controversial, you perhaps should have discussed them first.
 * Protection policy (WP:NO-PREEMPT) disfavors long-term full protection for articles. (And it is actually contrary to Wikimedia's terms of use .)
 * While the article contained some contentious material that was outside of BLP policy, it also contained a substantial amount of properly cited BLP compliant material. I could find nothing under BLP policy, Discretionary sanctions, or WP:Stubify that would have justified stubifying (rather than fixing) the article. To me, the editorial discretion required for you to stubify the article in the manner you did would seem to suggest that you are an "involved" administrator.
 * You've suggested that editors create a draft update of the article at Draft:Dennis L. Montgomery. That's not worked out too well -- the draft page still doesn't exist (So it's certainly not on anyone's watchlist.)
 * (I was moving my stuff home from uni yesterday) No, will not unprotect the article. My actions came from following the spirit of the original WP:BLPBAN -- Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy -- and the BLP Policy -- Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. The BLP policy exists to make sure that we do no harm to the subjects of articles. There was compelling evidence that we were causing problems for real living people. In addition, the article was one of the worst articles that I have ever read; it was a Christmas tree for every negative piece of information that could be found, including links to court cases which are banned by policy, and was written without regard for NPOV. While this individual is a con artist, Wikipedia does not exist name and shame people. I acted swiftly to remove the information that was causing harm and to bring the article into a state where it was within policy while giving editors a way to work on the article outside of the protected page per WP:BLPDEL. Since I was acting as an admin, I did this with the least amount of editorial discretion. Looking over the draft, I do not think it follows our BLP policy and therefore the risk of harm to a living person has not passed. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  00:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't sweat taking time off from WP. It's not like a couple of days away from here are going to cause irreparable damage.
 * BLPBAN was superceded for a reason. But I understand acting "in the spirit."
 * I don't disagree with you on the content of the article being contentious. Beyond copy/pasting the old version to the draft page, I did some work, in checking and verifying references, and flagging problems (e.g., citations to legal filings.) I didn't suggest it was ready yet. There's a lot more to do.
 * I think the subject is worthy of a quality article. So, let me suggest a compromise: I'll help drive the process of fixing the [draft] article, if you're willing to unprotect it when the community consensus says it's ready to go live. Cinteotl (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  05:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Busy
BusyUniversityStudent I guess I graduated -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  04:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! (Pick flowers on my talk.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Gerda. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  20:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

IP user on SH talk
Hi Guerillero,

It would be useful for sysop to review these posts. ,. I find the language to be unacceptable, I feel the IP should get a warning. And despite their protestations, in their 2014 post they did suggest wikipedia's deliberately self harm in order to get a more suitable image for use in the article. Which is totally unaaceptable. Then this is just a continuation of their disruptiveness, they just don't seem to know when to stop!

Cheers,

Polyamorph (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC) P.S. Long time no see, I'm still in retirement but am a bit of a lurker and very occasionally still edit.
 * Nice to see you, Polyamorph. I hope your are well. After looking over the page you linked I agree that the IP has been disruptive. They seem to be hopping through a wide range and I don't want to protect the tank page. I think this is a time to ignore them without any technical measures. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  15:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Guerillero, other administrators have since blocked the IP and their various sock puppets. All good thanks, just very busy, but that's a good thing.  Hope you are well too!  Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

the DevCom idea
Seems it went for a bust :(

I do appreciate the input you gave on IRC though about it. Until next time, Dax   Bane  04:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The Center Line: Spring 2015

 * —MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 12:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)