User talk:Miranda/AB

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009  Unsubscribe &middot; Single-page &middot; Full edition &raquo;  — 16 March 2009


 * News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
 * Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 23:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Tag removal
Meeting notability and sourcing requirements is the page author's responsibility, not mine. Tags should not be removed unless the issues they describe are dealt with. The article has no independent sources, and no indication of meeting notability requirements. Sorry, just being an ISP does not make a company notable. I have re-added the tags one last time. Tagging is the lesser option in the case. If they are removed again without the problems being solved, I will move on to the next option on the article, a full WP:AFD discussion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC) == Wikipedia Signpost : 23 March 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
 * Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
 * News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops
Just noticed this.... Thanks, I never noticed it until now. Enjoy the lolcats! Queenie 12:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 30 March 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
 * Special report: Community weighs license update
 * News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Cookie
Would it be wrong if I double templated this thing?

{{subst:munch}} — neuro  (talk) (review) 00:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. :-)  miranda   00:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 6 April 2009 ==


 * Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
 * News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
 * Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject China
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 13 April 2009 ==


 * License update: Licensing vote begins
 * News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
 * Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 20 April 2009 ==


 * Book reviews: Reviews of The Wikipedia Revolution
 * Wikipedia by numbers: Wikipedia's coverage and conflicts quantified
 * News and notes: New program officer, survey results, and more
 * Dispatches: Valued pictures
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Film
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

AKA Update
It's Knicksfan, it's been a while since I've been on here. I wanted to give you this update. I literally bumped into her right after this ceremony (http://www.aka1908.com/news/guinnessrecord) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.216.217.80 (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I already added the fact to the article.  miranda   19:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 27 April 2009 ==


 * Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
 * News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
 * WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

*
Hey now, I don't wanna be bleh but, when am writing this, now, i've a messenge on top telling me "BE NICE OR…&/c" hhh. seriously, how can I get one?! hope there's no disturbance/thnx so much --Ω (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 11 May 2009 ==


 * News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
 * Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have three questions
I made an edit today--one edit--to the article Carrie Prejean and have not made an edit to the article in days, but yet another editor reversed my ONE edit and then reported me on the 3RR notice board. I find this to be a clear use of Wikipedia to win a debate about article content and direction. Prejean was called a series of negative things by Perez Hilton, most of the words are contemptuous and vile, such as the b-word and c-word. There are editors that believe that each and every one of Hilton's use of those words MUST be included in the article about Prejean. Now, I don't see the need to have an article about Prejean dominated by the words and comments of ONE individual (highly negative words at that) dominate the life story of Prejean. It is tantamount to having the words of Saddam Hussein concerning George W Bush dominate the Wikipedia article about Bush. It violates Wikipedia avowed goal of NPOV and it violates BLP. Now, I know that consensus in Wikipedia editing is one of the goals, but consensus does NOT override other valid Wikipedia ideals such as BLP. There can be a compromise made where the gist of Hilton's highly negative opinion is included in the article, but at the same time it does NOT dominate the life story of Prejean. Prejean is notable for many, many reasons, not just her public fight with Hilton. She is notable for being a successful model; she is notable for participating in Deal or No Deal; she is notable for being the current Miss California USA; and she is now notable for being a TV personality. My first question is: Can you at least review the article and see if the second, third, fourth, and fifth repetitions of the b-word and c-word violates BLP? I believe that it does. And my second question is: Is it appropriate to make a report on an editor for violating 3RR even though that editor has only made one edit? And my third question is: Is misusing 3RR to win a debate on the proper interpretation of BLP appropriate? I don't think so.--InaMaka (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Trivia IRC
Hi.

Re. Wikipedia_talk:IRC_channels, almost a year ago!

I've been playing with bots, and recently running a trivia quiz bot in freenode ##chzz (mostly for Wikipedians that I kinda know on #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en and #wikipedia-en-help. (All freenode).

The bot is called MoxQuizz, and is GFDL. It uses eggdrop, which is also GFDL. It comes with about 6000 general-knowledge questions. It would be possible to modify it to have a new set of questions based upon Wikipedia. It is quite full-featured, keeping statistics etc.

If this sounds of interest, please let me know. Feel free to drop in to if you like - the odds are good that I and/or the bot will be there.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  22:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for help
I thought it might be a good idea to run a contest or two through the Countries WikiProject to attract editors to improve country coverage on Wikipedia, especially the country outlines.

I noticed you are a member of the WikiProject, and was wondering if you could help.

I've posted a message at Countries WikiProject talk page to get discussion started on what the awards programs should be and how they should be run.

Your ideas and feedback would be greatly appreciated.

 Th e Tr ans hu man ist   23:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 18 May 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Writers needed
 * Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
 * Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
 * News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

<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 &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 25 May 2009 ==


 * License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
 * News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

<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 &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 1 June 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Browsing the archives
 * Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
 * Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
 * News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

<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 &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Article on J. Allison
As written on original discussion page, you requested note:

I fail to see the purpose of this page. This person does not appear to be any more important than any one else. To be reasonable, if this person is allowed a unique page, then virtually every other person deserves one as well. Given that numerous pages about other people are often removed for similar reasons, this page should also be taken down.

She has no concrete accomplishments to speak of, no examples of impact upon society, the arts, sciences, politics, etc. She merely is someone who has been a successful self-promoter. Her references are themselves opportunistic attempts to self-promote. I do not feel that this page should remain; unless the page is dedicated to the CONCEPT of self-promotion, with this person as an example, citing whatever event(s), procedures, ideas or experiences were employed in order to successfully self-promote.

The purpose of Wikipedia is, and has always been, a means to access useful information to educate and reference. This person and the information associated with her, is not useful nor does it educate; consequently it does not merit display here. Keeping this article says that people who wish to create useless pages for no other purpose than personal gain are more important than those who actually affect society, yet either do not have the time or inclination to create a page for themselves. Wikipedia is about objective reporting and recording of useful facts, events, people, ideas, concepts and phenomena. It is quite simply, not a forum for autobiographical publicity. There are several, reputable websites for such purposes, and I submit that this article has been misplaced.

Due to the fact that this article has been "semi-protected", there is no other recourse or mechanism for recommendation for deletion, such as ":subst:afdl" or "subst:afdx". I request that the article, if not deleted immediately, have its protection removed so that it can be properly discussed, and requests for deletion can be tendered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.225.220 (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Listed.  miranda   18:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Per Rewards Board
The JFK. pic. is up for voting. AndrewrpTally-ho! 15:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I added an alt.  miranda   18:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ask the people at the reference desk at this link to provide you with a better version. Thanks.  miranda   18:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 15 June 2009 ==


 * Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
 * News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
 * Wikipedia in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

<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 &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Thatextrahalfaninchuk.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Thatextrahalfaninchuk.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Victoria Beckham
Please do not undo me without comment. I am not a vandal. If you disagree with my edits, explain why in the edit summary or on a talk page. J Milburn (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did I say that you were a vandal? However, removing the book, I do believe you should have consulted the talk page to reach consensus. And, you might want to look over own. Thanks.  miranda   21:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In reverting my edits without comment, you treat me as a vandal. I have no desire to discuss every change on article talk pages- this in particular seems a pretty clear cut case of a non-free image that is not required. Finally, I really don't see what you are accusing me of 'owning'. Care to explain? J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Removing material (i.e. fair use images) without discussing on the talk page is kind of owning to me. Oh, yeah...the vandal bit. Please assume good faith. If I were to treat you as a vandal, I would have done, rv vandalism. Thnx.  miranda   23:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Removing material requires talk page discussion? And you ask me to assume good faith, and stop attempting to own articles? If I see non-free content that is being abused, I will remove it, and I would expect anyone else to do the same. I hate to cite such a basic principle, but what on Earth happened to being bold? And, I'm not really fussed what your usual edit summary for reverting vandalism is- if you are going to throw out good faith edits, you can explain what you're doing, or expect to face unhappy editors. If you make a sound, policy-based edit, with an explanation, the last thing you expect is to be reverted without comment, then accused of behaving as if you "own" the article, especially when you've never edited it before. Seriously, have you actually sat back and read what you're saying? This isn't some power trip for me, I'm not trying to "get one over" on you, but I am slightly alarmed that such a long term contributor is failing to grasp these basic principles. J Milburn (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * K. thx. bai.  miranda   00:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 22 June 2009 ==


 * Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
 * News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

<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 &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)