User talk:M.O.X/Archive 10

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: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 00:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2011
Out of curiosity, did you actually click the link in my MFD of April fools/April Fools' Day 2011? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No and I feel like an idiot for not doing so >.< —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 4:53pm • 05:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Abuse reports
Can you please specify the actual reason for deleting these abuse reports? The pages themselves don't hold many clues. And I don't really see the need for them to be speedied, either. A mass MfD would be easier for all concerned. --Closedmouth (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the g6 tag, because there's no explanation and it's clearly not uncontroversial maintenance. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see Wikipedia talk:Abuse response, most of these reports are unneeded and are a blemish on IPs, considering the owners may have changed over the years and the reason why most of the IPs were reported was for single-instance vandalism. —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 11:59am • 00:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Featured Sound Nomination
Thanks! I uploaded the file too ;) —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 3:51pm • 04:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

side-bar
Mind you, the colour I've chosen for my wikilinks is much toned down, and I find the system much less obstructive. But one disadvantage is that I have to look very carefully to see the difference between the colours for "already visited" and "not visited yet". Hmmm. Maybe I'll find someone who can tell me how to make my "already visited" colour slightly purple, the way it used to be before the revamp last year. Tony  (talk)  07:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The already visited links are lighter I think. I agree with you about the colour though and I'm using the exact same colour, also you should use AutoEd Complete, it correct MOS issues and the complete version has GregU's script included in the library already. —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 7:15pm • 08:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:FFU
Please be a little more careful, when reviewing requests at Files for upload. In this case you instructed the non-registered user to fill out a non-free rationale, when it's clear, that the image isn't eligible for non-free use, because the subject of it, Alberto Medina, is a living person. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII  Undertaker 19–0  00:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot that images of living people don't qualify under WP:NONFREE despite editing numerous articles where only PD or CC-BY-SA or GFDL images can be used (most of the Premiers of New South Wales, Prime Ministers of Australia and the Governors-General of Australia) I should have declined that request after looking at the licensing on the website where it was located. —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 11:15am • 00:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Set picture on hold, waiting for permission. Armbrust  WrestleMania XXVII  Undertaker 19–0  00:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Armbrust. —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 11:28am • 00:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of ACC tool users' pledge
ACC tool users' pledge, a page you substantially contributed to, 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  10:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

FSC template
Thanks for the reminder. Please come by and voice your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2011
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 02:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

FS Barnstar
Hi, I see you added a WP:BARNSTAR, however there was no consensus to add it as far as I know. Quoting "If you would like a barnstar to be added to the list, please discuss it at WikiProject Wikipedia Awards talk page. Please don't add it without a consensus! Barnstars without consensus will be removed." Please discuss the addition first, thanks. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Pre-noms for Australian politicians
Hi. A word to the wise. Re this edit and the others that you've been doing, you may as well call it quits now because they're all going to be reverted. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz  [your turn]  10:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is to my knowledge that Governors of NSW are given the honorific "His/Her Excellency", I'm not sure when this came into effect (ie. if they used the honorific before). —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 9:46pm • 10:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely familiar with the Honours system, bar what I told you I know very little. I also know that where a person has been appointed to the Privy Council, the honorific of "The Right Honourable" takes precedence and other honorifics should not be added. —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 9:53pm • 10:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of what they were entitled to in general use in real life. It's a question of Wikipedia consensus about such matters, which is not to put them in.  --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  11:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If there was consensus to do so, wouldn't there be a hidden comment as there usually is in most articles? Not that I question what you say since I'm unaware of such happenings. —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 10:35pm • 11:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you just did question what I say. :) Maybe someone else reading this can confirm the policy in these cases.  --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  11:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies, please know what I said was meant in the most respectful and sincerest of intentions. I'm following the MOS, though (that much I know) see MOS:HONORIFIC ;). Regards, —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 10:51pm • 11:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't take long for this to spark up debate. The title "Excellency" is only afforded to Governors/Ambassadors etc while they are in office it is not a life long title. Therefore, it probably shouldn't be in the info box etc except perhaps for the incumbent (but thats a whole other argument). Privvy Councillors are different, as it usually an appointment for life. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I understand, however, some articles still retain the title in the infoboxes, despite the subject being deceased for a while. —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 9:19am • 23:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't found any historical documents that use the term Excellency for the early Governors. I will have to do some research to find when the term actually came into use. I will try to fix up the anomalies. Cheers --Oliver Nouther (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, I think it took effect post 1820, I think Governors from Phillip to Macquarie didn't use "Excellency", that much I'm 80% sure. Regards, —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 9:52am • 23:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The point is getting missed here. "His/Your Excellency" etc is not a title but a form of address.  We don't show "Her/Your Majesty" in Elizabeth II's infobox, or "Your/His Holiness" in Pope Benedict XVI's.  We don't deny these forms of address are appropriate in real life, but they're not encyclopedic since they do not form any part of the person's name or title.  --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  04:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You've hit the nail on the head! There is even a Viceregal Styles info box that details the form of address.--Oliver Nouther (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Excellency is less along the lines of title and more an honorific as you say, so it does make sense that including it wouldn't be feasible or encyclopedic. —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 5:11pm • 07:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Closing instructions at FSC
Please don't delete the manual instructions. If X!'s tool is down, we're screwed without them. Plus, it's much easier to follow the manual instructions when closing large batches of files at once. It's my hope that we'll have lots of large batches to close. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, X!'s tools haven't been done for years though (the mainstream ones) if they are it's only for minor updates, at least that's to my recollection. —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 9:11am • 23:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ha! I can fix that!
Featured sound candidates/A la Nanita Nana. Thanks for pointing out the problem. Once I knew what it was, it was easy to fix. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Closing RFA per WP:SNOW
I'm not sure that 4 (four) votes counts as WP:SNOW - and leaving it open for only two hours? Whilst I am not sure that the RFA will succeed, I think you have been far too hasty. Secondly, if you are going to close it, then you must update the alphabetical and chronological list of failed RFAs. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was coming here to say the same thing- also doing a SNOW without notifying the candidate is not best practice. Courcelles 10:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I probably should have let it sit and let another admin/crat deal with it. My apologies, —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 8:33pm • 10:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I think the best way forward is for you to self-revert. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks for pointing out my mistakes! —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 8:43pm • 10:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I absolutely agree with closing it. An opening statement like that is never going to succeed, the entire nomination appears quite pointy. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Obama speech
While I agree that was unlikely to pass, these do need to run (at least) 7 days before closing, unless the nominator withdraws. I don't think it's worth restoring it (unless TonyTheTiger asks), but do watch the dates. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks Adam! —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 9:14am • 23:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing - don't forget to notify the uploader and nominator. If X!'s tool doesn't include that, we'll need to change the instructions (I tend to go manual, out of habit). Honestly, I think you can get away with a lot of things I couldn't (because my actions on FS are going to be heavily scrutinised since I'm so active there), but it's not worth pushing it too much. (in particular, closing after one day? Tsk, tsk, naughty naughty, you'll probably get away with it, but don't do that again. =) )  Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I want to reiterate what adam said this FS was only up to be discussed for a little under a day. While I doubt It would have failed please let things run its full 7 days. (Also when you are closing FSes please try to stay away from the ones you !voted on.) cheers --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  &#124; <font color="Dark Orange">Review Me  00:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, thought there might be some backlash from that. The trouble with unlimited freedom in situations like this is that you only have it so long as you don't use it too much, or too far. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh ok, 7 days is a bit much for a nomination that's going to succeed no matter what though, it just makes the main page laggy and extremely long leaving it there. I wasn't aware that closing FSes I !voted on would be a problem since I practically comment on EVERY FSC :P but I'll keep that in mind. —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 11:24am • 01:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

200th featured sound
On a cheerier note, your nomination, O Canada, was the 200th Featured sound. Just totalled them up, and discovered we hit a milestone. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks Adam :) —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 1:39pm • 03:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Advance Australia Fair
File:U.S. Navy Band, Advance Australia Fair (instrumental).ogg <- Is this better? Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The drums are more audible and there are cymbals! :) Much better than the one I came across. Thanks again Adam :). —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 1:47pm • 03:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is the one you came across. I just edited it =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are the professional :P I'm just the listener! —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 8:44pm • 10:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

George Washington
Hello, this edit, deleted the Cornwallis image as it had a date in the image filename and also removed all the postage stamp images. Please watch out for how articles render after a format edit, Tom B (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked three other Presidential articles that had postage stamps and images, they were fine, I completely forgot about Washington, thanks for fixing that up Tom. — James (Talk) • 9:38pm • 11:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC on Bot template page
Hi. Just wondered if you would like to comment on the Bot template page where a discussion about the change of the icon that trial bots use has been started. I feel more input is required before consensus is reached. You are reciving this message as you are signed up for the RFC service. Thank you. Cj005257 (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC).

Old Fridae's Doom Refs
Hi, your Awards and associated links at the top of this page still refer to Fridae's Doom, which has been deleted. I'd fix them, but you're the most qualified to know where they should point! twilsonb (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They're the same, just with Ancient Apparition instead. I'll fix them now :) Thanks for point that out to me! — James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:46pm • 08:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC

Speedy delete for G6
Hi AA, when you tag a G6 for speedy delete you need to give a reason, because usually we don't know what you know about why the page should go. For example with Adopt-a-user/Intro, perhaps you wanted to tag something else, and this was in use making CSD light up with pages that transcluded it. The "What links here" link is good to check if you think something is unused. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Graeme, back before Netalarm and I revamped AAU, that template was used, but since then the main text has been copied over onto the main page. It is no longer used where it was intended thus I requested deletion under G6. I was not aware users were using the template as this was not the case last year when the template became deprecated Also the pages on which it is used are the old designs of AAU, the pages themselves are nothing but test pages if you see for yourself. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:13pm • 12:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for deleting it Graeme :) — James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:05am • 23:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform
Hi. I have now moved the RfA reform and its associated pages to project space. The main page has been updated and streamlined. We now also have a new table on voter profiles. Please take a moment to check in and keep the pages on your watchlist. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Canadian date format - all 3
On 2011-APR-03, you made numerous date format edits, such as to O Canada. Perhaps you are not aware that Canada uses 3 date formats and the only one with any claim to strong national ties is YYYY-MMM-DD. The article used MDY for almost 10 years with nary an interruption. Per retain I have reverted your edit. I hope you have not changed other Canadian articles without considering this.--JimWae (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I assumed that most Commonwealth countries used DMY, I was aware of the first page to which you linked. Thanks for telling me. Regards, — James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:30am • 00:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Roosevelt Fireside Chat
You participated at Featured sound candidates/Fireside Chat 1 On the Banking Crisis (March 12, 1933) Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I was hoping you might comment at Featured sound candidates/delist/Fireside Chat 1 On the Banking Crisis (March 12, 1933) Franklin Delano Roosevelt.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

New version notice
See new file at Featured sound candidates/Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (February 24, 2009) Barack Obama (video).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstars

 * Wow, thanks Oddbodz :) — James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:57pm • 09:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comments
I think your comments make a lot of sense. While it might not be on it's way to passing, I'm going to let it run it's course (we have 6 more days), and try to address the concerns of users like you in the long run. –BuickCenturyDriver 08:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if that came across as uncivil, thank you for being understanding. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:34pm • 09:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed the category on my userpage, so I'm no longer in the admin category. I substed the template and wanted to put a small icon in the top right corner. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, in any case I altered my !vote, I don't think some of what I said was entirely fair on you. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:10pm • 12:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two kinds of opposes, informative ones and pile-on one like "Oppose per X". Though it's too late to save my current nom, I appreciate your feedback.  My second nom showed a tremendous improvement from the 1st one.  –BuickCenturyDriver 03:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I look forward to future encounters with you and hope that you continue to do the good work you have done over these ~3 years. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 1:57pm • 03:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

History of the United States Navy
Could you please review my changes based on your review? I did tweak the article a bit, but in general you don't need to have a citation for every sentence which I think was the heart of your A1 concern. If you need more info I can probably find the relevant links. Thanks! Kirk (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, great work. I support :) — James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:54am • 22:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Resignation of Hosni Mubarak
I have closed the discussion. The merge does not need administrator action, so you can do it. COpy the text etc to the main article with and edit summary that credits Resignation of Hosni Mubarak. Then Change Resignation of Hosni Mubarak to a redirect to Hosni Mubarak. |The talk page can stay as is. Do not nominate Resignation of Hosni Mubarak for deletion as it contains attribution history. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks Graeme :) — James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:59pm • 08:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Closing Featured Sounds You Have Voted In
Hi there, I know you and I have different positions on how closings should work at Featured Sounds, however I did want to point something out. Closing featured sounds that you also voted in, even if it's not a promotion, or even if there is a clear consensus, or even if the outcome is the opposite of your vote, is something that is strongly discouraged. Featured Sounds has smaller participation than other areas, and so it is susceptible to backlogs and low voting numbers, however as a featured process, it can and should be scrutinized and should be held to the highest standard possible.

If it's been 10 or so days, you've already voted, and a consensus is there, drop a note at the talk page and someone who hasn't voted will close it. If there isn't a consensus either way, letting it run a while longer can't hurt.

Now I know this isn't written down anywhere, so I really can't get angry with you, however in the future please this in mind. Thank you,  S ven M anguard   Wha?  22:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No one's being arsed to close them, all I see is nomination after nomination, I'm sorry but I think I rather liked it when FS was quiet. So even if I supported and closed as not promoted it's not acceptable? I don't see that as a COI, I really don't, all things considered you are right as FS is a featured process and what not. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:48am • 00:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's really not what I think that matters, I personally would have opposed it, and I think that non-promotion was the correct outcome. However what we as insiders think/know and what the rest of the community sees are different things. It is important not to create the illusion of impropriety as doing so would cause Featured Sounds to lose the support of the community, or the community will turn on us. The last thing I want is for Featured Sounds to become the next Valued Pictures, as we all know what happened to VP.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  06:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, VP, people tried so desperately to revive a long dead project... you've got a good point there. I'll refrain from doing so in the future. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:57pm • 08:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

FSC promotions
Not quite sure if you were done promoting, but don't forget to put

into WP:FS. In the historical section, under speeches Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah IE8's being a bitch :S so things are slower than usual. I'm done now though. Thanks Adam. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:43am • 01:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that! Figured you probably just hadn't got to it yet, but it had been a bit. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, I was going to give up and then I got the lovely orange bar and saw your message, you saved me having to reopen the nom page and copy-pasting from there :P — James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:00pm • 09:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-04-16/Internet Explorer 10
Hello, James. Thanks for attending to case.

I declare the problem chiefly resolved. You have my gratitude.

Only with the interest of learning, I have raised three objections to your mediation. I will be happy to receive an answer to them. I promise you that if I receive a convincing answer, I will leave the article well alone and will not bother its date style again.

I am more than happy to see the problem is resolved ... resolved without anyone unearthing my past, insulting me, calling me "equine necrosadist" and accusing me of [insert a bad behavior here]. Indeed I feel like this bird. If there is anything I can do for Mediation Cabal in return, please let me know.

Fleet Command (talk) 07:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome I'm glad to have helped, I've made more observations and another proposal, whether you and Gyrobo support is entirely up to you two. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:30pm • 09:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That RfA Reform Thing
Kudpung has asked me to 'nudge' some people .. as I'm an idle get, I'm just going through the entire Task Force list so my apologies if you didn't need a nudge! You can slap me about over on WP:EfD if you like :o) Straw polling various options: over here - please add views, agree with views, all that usual stuff. Pesky  ( talk ) 12:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

looking to be adopted and I saw your profile on the adoption page! There is a ton to learn here and I want to make sure my contributions are done right. Azkurt (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)AZKurt

FS

 * Cheers Guerillero. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:16am • 01:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thx
Thanks for getting the ruffles to the log, I was distracted by Yanni and forgot to do it.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  01:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries :) — James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:15am • 01:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Help needed
I don't know if it's because of a script I use or a gadget I have enabled but I keep viewing the old version of the Copyright warning on the edit interface, yet when I log out and edit as an anonymous user I see the current version of the copyright warning. Originally, I thought the problem had something to do with my cache, but it turns out it has nothing to do with my cookies, cache or IE. On top of that when I go to Special:PendingChanges it shows "less than 1 hour" instead of the current MediaWiki message. It's the same for when I try to edit a fully protected page, I don't get the huge box warning instead I get a few lines of text, eg. This page has been protected to prevent editing, the reason follows (it's something along those lines). Why is that? — James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:38pm • 06:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you using any custom css scripts?(ie vector.css) Morgan Kevin J (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Only 1 and that's to change the colours of links from light blue to dark blue, but this problem existed prior to my insertion of said code to my previously non-existant .css pages. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:54pm • 06:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What is your language set to? If it isn't en (for example, it could be en-gb), you will get a different set of interface messages (for example, Mediawiki:Protectedpagetext/en-gb as opposed to Mediawiki:Protectedpagetext.) — μ 02:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, that explains it then. Thanks! — James (Talk • Contribs) • 12:22pm • 02:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Link checking on Peterborough
Hi - when you tagged all those links in Peterborough many were inside the Wayback to link to archived copies of the pages, and others were there to record the original url from which the archived copy was taken. It seems to me that it's not really helpful to tag such links as dead. David Underdown (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If they were already wayback links and tagged as dead then the wayback link would probably have been dead as well, also the bot has a low false-positive rate. I will, however, check the links myself to see if anything went wrong in the process. Thanks for calling my attention to this. Regards, — James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:44pm • 10:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Having checked most of the links it appears that they are indeed dead, I get messages from the website they're hosted on like, "the page you are looking for does not exist", or they were actual HTTP403/4 erros or redirects back to the homepage. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:49pm • 10:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the point is the template automatically adds the additional parts of the url to get the archived version - if you just test the url within the template as you see it within the raw text of the page it will show as dead, but if you check the text as rendered in html it will be a valid link. e.g. http://www.orangeprize.co.uk/opf/books.php4?bookid=180 is indeed dead but when rendered via Wayback this is expanded to http://classic-web.archive.org/web/20071206201325/http://www.orangeprize.co.uk/opf/books.php4?bookid=180 which isn't dead (unless the Wayback machine is playing up for some reason -it's certainly slow at times) And where the original link is also quoted within the same reference as an archived version, tagging it as dead isn't particularly necessary as the archived version is there - a major reason for the dead link tag as I understand it is to get people to look for the updated url, in many of these cases there may not be such a url, but the archived version gets us the content as originally cited anyway - I've not been editing much recently, so I may have missed a "policy" on this though. David Underdown (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the wayback links wasn't working for me, the bot tags dead links so if the wayback links were dead or non-existant then it would have tagged them as well (which is quite stupid) considering refs are bundled. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:29pm • 11:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So far as I could see the original checked marked all the Wayback links as being dead. One issue with this particular article is that I could never persuade the other major editor to adopt the cite web etc templates, so the hadnling of these cases with archived links is somewhat atypical.  Is there a better way of marking known dead links where there is no appropriate new url (other than an archived copy), but retaining the original url to record that that is what was actually originally cited?  David Underdown (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the references are all over the place. Not all the wayback links were tagged, only some most of the others still functioned. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:55pm • 11:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Orange Prize one I used as an example above was certainly tagged - though it clearly does work. David Underdown (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I checked, sorry about that, I don't know how many other refs got inappropriately tagged. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:20pm • 12:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

ping
I emailed you about membership of WMAu. Tony  (talk)  11:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:29pm • 11:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"Article body text"
Could you please take another look? I'm trying to keep my tone as neutral as I can, and stick to the content, but I'm starting to find FleetCommand's comments and edit summaries increasingly disrespectful. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've left my response there. I hope this doesn't escalate into another dispute... — James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:29am • 23:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That would not be my preference, at all. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nor mine, let's see what FleetCommand has to say. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:00am • 00:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Outside opinion needed
I'm awfully sorry, but I can't help you very much, because I know nothing of dts — until I read that mediation page I was actually unaware of its existence... — and because, quite frankly, I believe that dispute is a bit silly: to edit war about how dates should be displayed is more than futile. As far as I'm concerned, this dispute could be resolved by tossing a coin, although, from a merely aesthetic standpoint I prefer Fleet Commands's solution as I deem it tidier. If one has to follow policy, however, I'd say that the dates in the reference section should be left as they are now: YYYY-MM-DD and the date in the table as it is now: DD MM, YYYY, because the table is very short. So, I'd say that a good proposal to end the dispute would be to compromise: the table follows Fleet Command's DD MM, YYYY and the reference section follows Gyrobo's YYYY-MM-DD. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, I tried explaining in the simplest terms what was MOS compliant and what wasn't but now a whole new dispute has started over what is and isn't prose... thanks anyway Salvio! — James (Talk • Contribs) • 12:07am • 14:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you wish, I can propose this as a compromise, to see if they would like to accede to it... My personal suggestion to you — if you're interested —, if you plan to try and mediate other disputes, would be to try and always be the one leading the parties towards a solution. Don't let them stray and create new disputes. In this case, you are there to help them solve a controversy regarding how dates should be formatted; don't let them distract you; you are the mediator, make them focus. If they have further doubts, they can try to solve them, after this dispute has been settled. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 14:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried my best to resolve the issue on dates, when I saw FleetCommand take the initiative I was jumping for joy, then things went downhill from there. I consulted everything about Dates in MOS:NUM, to the point where I could recite the important sections off the top of my head :S that issue is well and truly resolved but now they're arguing over what prose is when it's clear prose is any text that is not a list or table. FleetCommand doesn't agree with the use of dts because the table atm is not the longest, but it does the article no harm. So now I've got another silly little dispute that has no point to it. :S Argh, I need a wikibreak. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 12:25am • 14:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * to the point where I could recite the important sections off the top of my head Argh... Seriously, though, if the dispute regarding dates has been solved, you can close the mediation, if you wish; you are under no obligation to help them straighten out all their differences of opinion. In this case, you were much more patient than I could have ever been. When you mediate, you should always remember that, while it's up to the parties to reach an agreement, you're the one who guides them and tries to prevent them from digressing and wasting your time and theirs.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 14:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the advice Salvio, I'll notify them on their talk pages and close this monster of an informal mediation case... — James (Talk • Contribs) • 12:37am • 14:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Grace Under Fire
Hi there. I am confused by your close of this move discussion. My original request was to make the 1993 TV series the primary topic, and move it to "Grace Under Fire". I see there were two responses: one by an anon IP to rename it instead to "Grace Under Fire (1993 TV series)", and a regular user who just said "the 1993 series is clearly the primary topic". So why did you not make it the primary topic, and instead move it to the title that the anon IP suggested? Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Misread the !votes, will fix. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 3:55pm • 05:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I am not an admin I can't move it to the dab, I'll move the dab and then request deletion of the redir for the move. Sorry about that. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 3:56pm • 05:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi James. Could you please clarify how this should be moved? If I understand, you want the 1993 series article to be titled simply "Grace Under Fire", and a DAB page created. Or do you want the 1993 show to be titled "Grace Under Fire", the 2011 series to be titled "Grace Under Fire (2011 series)" and no DAB?-RHM22 (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The result of the move discussion was to have the 1993-99 series moved to the location of the dab page I tagged under G6 and have the Hong Kong TV series left as is. Sorry about the confusion — James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:02am • 01:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I got it! How does this look?-RHM22 (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's good :) Thanks RHM! — James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:44am • 01:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem! Let me know if you have any other requests.-RHM22 (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do! — James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:55am • 01:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Monty
Your edit seems to be an error. What happened? Gimmetoo (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:CITE it has references but they're not cited. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:43pm • 07:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes they are. Ref tags are not the only way to do citations. See CITE. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And I made another uninformed edit, sorry about that. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:50pm • 07:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
 Yes Michael? •Talk 07:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)   Yes Michael?  •Talk 07:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Dan Sebring / Daniel P. Sebring
Hi. You tagged a speedy delete on Daniel P. Sebring (User:Dansebring); I tagged one on Dan Sebring (User:Bromberek). These articles are identical and were added minutes apart. Bromberek (Dansebring?) comments here: Talk:Dan Sebring. Not much up on sockpuppetry, but is this what we have? Acabashi (talk) 04:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is very suspicious indeed... — James (Talk • Contribs) • 2:43pm • 04:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, and there is another one User:Garageman4u specially created to comment on the talk page linked above. Acabashi (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should file a sockpuppet investigation? — James (Talk • Contribs) • 3:00pm • 05:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Abuse response
Hi James, before history merging a major page like this you should seek consensus. You could do this via a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Abuse response. I saw that you closed a requested move. You should only do this if the outcome is very clear, otherwise you will suffer the consequences. It would be good if you contributed to the move discussion of perhaps 50 articles. This will show that you have a good grasp of dealing with controversy and the policy. WP:TITLE. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to get myself involved where possible, yeah I guess you're right, evaluating consensus based on minimal comments isn't a good idea. The project got renamed and the original pages got left to rot, I'll get opinions from the other project members. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:12pm • 08:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Editor Review
Hi James. Thank you very much for your kind words at my Editor review/Worm That Turned, I really do appreciate them. I was wondering if you had spotted any areas to work on whilst perusing my edits. I'd appreciate the criticism. <font color="#000">WormTT · &#32;(talk) 09:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really, you're familiar and quite well-versed with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines where you do participate actively, perhaps maybe reviewing some articles or other featured content. That's all I'm able to suggest, because unlike me you catch on fast and make very little mistakes, if any. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:06pm • 09:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that, I appreciate it. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, do keep up the good work. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:33pm • 09:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

verifiable source clarification
Hi James,

You mentioned in your comment on the page I'm trying to publish,[|McMurry], that I should visit "referencing for beginnings". I did, but I would love some more detail as to what specifically I'm missing here (I'm getting a lot of push-back to get this page live so I'm grateful for any specific help). Have I incorrectly written the references, or are the references themselves (Inc. magazine, Entreprenuer magazine, allbusiness.com and Advertising Age magazine) not considered valid in the Wikipedia community?

Thanks, KTHaney (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)KtHaneyKTHaney (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Use reliable third-party sources and the proper citation format, reliable sources include newspapers and journals, such as the New York Times. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:14am • 23:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

MOTD's State of Emergency + 1st of May's Motto
As you probably already know, we are facing some problems at MOTD. I am personally monitoring all the nominations on a daily basis and I'm finding very difficult to aprove the motto for the next day. The number of nominations has grown significantly, but even then it seems not enough. Please, if you have time, take a look at the nominations. And, if you like some of them but you think they are not good enough for being approved because of the set of links or and etcetera, please, try to improve them where it is possible. At this rate, I fear that we will see the end of the project. Thanks in advance. I have also added a special nomination for this Sunday, 1st of May (International Workers' Day or May Day). Please, take a look at it if you can. All the best. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 15:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: I'm sorry to bother you again, but take a look at this if you can. Once again, thank you. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 18:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Advisor.js
Hi there. I don't know what Advisor.js is but I see you're using it a lot and thought I ought to direct your attention to this edit that you made with it, which broke an image. It might be worth trying to exclude URLs and images from whatever changes it's making. Kind regards. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the bot you use broke two images on the Ben Franklin page. A bot that indiscriminately adds a no-break space to text should be halted immediately and reprogrammed.  Thank you very much! –  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  22:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Citation bot was cleaning up the references, it was Advisor.js that edited the image, I was certain when I checked the changes I made that the images weren't affected, guess I should have checked the actual page post-edit. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:59am • 23:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:47, 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 19:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Mail
Susan.schafer (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of JO Josh Eastman Entertainment for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article JO Josh Eastman Entertainment is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/JO Josh Eastman Entertainment until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ScottSteiner ✍  08:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Information
Sir, I want to know which type of contents is unecylopedic in nature as you have written to stop adding unencyclopedic content. I had added some information in Darbhanga and almost all of them are removen by you. I duly understand that references are of utmost necessity and I will comply my further edits with reference. I have resided in Darbhanga and believe that current article is a stub to its status. Further Darbhanga is the 2nd biggest city in Bihar and capital of ancient Mithila. Waiting for your prompt reply.

Mani Bhushan —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManiBhushan1991 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)