User talk:Mr rnddude/Archive 8

AN/I
Thank-you for the analysis. May I point out one flaw? I don't make 90%+ of the MfDs, I just happened to have a unclosed batch that were 90% of the old business at a point in time. Check my post at the top of the thread to see mine were 13 or 14 out of about 31 active. Still a significant number but low enough your conclusion needs a second look. Thanks again. Legacypac (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I had meant to mean 90% of the current "draftspace" MfD's rather than 90% of MfD's. I also meant currently. I will revise that statement and see if any other of my conclusions need immediate amendment. Thanks for the note. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've not looked at Draftspace vs Userspace. I counted all open MfDs and it's a moving target of course. BTW based on my reading of WP:BANEX and the section just above that, commenting on an XfD started by the other party is normally not allowed, but commenting on one started by a 3rd party is fine. Hence the exception carved out originally - if my reading is not correct the exception makes no sense. Legacypac (talk) 09:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The only way that I can see that commenting on an XfD started by the other party wouldn't be allowed is if I take their comment on such an XfD to be a direct reply to  (which would fall under point 2. of WP:IBAN). I believe that's actually what Nihlus Kryik was trying to tell me, if that's the case then the exception and the upping to full IBAN would make sense. If not, then, I'm not sure what is achieved. That's actually why I made a comment rather than any kind of !vote. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not as explicit as it could be, which is why I quiried User:Primefac in the thread, but thinking about it more it seems "reply to each other in discussions;" appears to cover it. If you start a discussion that says Sucky Article should be deleted, and I reply "Keep because blah blah blah" I'm replying to your original post. However if someone else starts the deletion discussion on Even Worse Article and we both reply to that without commenting on each other's posts, we are both ok. Legacypac (talk) 09:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , hmm, well if that's the case then full IBAN will fit the purpose. If it's not, then it's not that difficult to just have it extended to cover your MfD nominations as a whole. I'll hat my giant comment and write a smaller one underneath. Taking up a lot of space as it is. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Just a sec. I'll show you something else. over 82% match to the result and a high percentage of the 1500+ MfDs are started by me. Legacypac (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the link. 82.3% match rate is significantly higher than I'd worked out based on my readings of the MfD noms currently on the page. Well, you'll have better days and worse ones. Extrapolating on my part was an error. I didn't know there was a tool for XfD stats. Will keep that, it might come in handy. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The tool is not working fully for me right now, but it's really useful for checking yourself against consensus amd defending yiurself if anyone ever says you are off the mark at an XfD. Here's another useful tool http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py Legacypac (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , coincidentally, my MfD stats are 0/1 (0%); Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Polythesis/The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control. Haha. I have the editor interaction analyzer tool on my user page, I use it for cases like yours, but, I only needed to look at the post IBAN interactions and that accounted for about 40 edits. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was just sharing a useful tool for future use, not suggesting anything here. Your vote was one target there, just had a deletion out of left field. One thing about the stats tool - the big percentage is only part of the story. To score a "match" to help your percentage you need an exact match like Vote Delete=Result Delete. Vote=Delete does not match Result=Speedy Delete or Result=Blank even when the effect is the same. The grid shows the outliers and the list shows the detail.


 * If you get interested in cleanup work and sorting good material from CSDable junk, check out my main userpage. I've collected some good links for that. I find it easy to click my username and find the links. Legacypac (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

JackW436 ANI
Thanks for the ping regarding that ANI. I only saw it today after a rather nice weekend out. The community endorsed indef block was inevitable for Jack. Blackmane (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Citation style
It's actually a very common citation style, according to MLA and Chicago Manual of Style. Although there are some other ways to do it, this is the one I prefer. I've tried some of the templates, and find them extremely cumbersome. See Battle of Rossbach, Battle of Leuthen, Battle of Hochkirch, Battle of Kunersdorf. In the latter, I did try a different style, and it made me craaaa-zeee. In the end, I always come back to this one as the easiest to read, and to type. auntieruth (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , alright, thanks for the note. I started out using the Harvard APA6th style and moved to Wikipedia sfn format because it's both tedious to type out every single citation in APA6th (when that's a bibliography style) and it becomes difficult to navigate through source code when there's a lot of very long citation strands. I've just never seen the citation style that you use before. I've put in an ambiguity tag in one place on the article due to confusion as to who exactly is being referenced. I also need to query what citation is being used in one paragraph, and have put a CN tag there. Other than that, it looks to me to have met all the other B-class criteria. I did some prose work to get the B4, please review that to see if it meets your expectations. B3 and B5 are obviously met. I believe B2 has also been met. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Panthéon-Assas University
From a section higher up on your talk page, I notice you were previously active in discussions about this article. Lately the article made a new appearance at RFPP. The upshot was that the article was semiprotected four days by User:MelanieN and I wound up blocking the other editor mentioned in the RFPP for 3 days. Meanwhile, in an unrelated action, User:CambridgeBayWeather has fully protected Sciences Po for a month. Since the dispute on Panthéon-Assas University and at Sciences Po has been raging for many months, I wonder if you have any advice for admins. It's possible there is some COI editing and some sockpuppetry, but it would need to be documented so that action can be taken. One option might be long-term full protection of both articles, which would force the working out of the issues on the talk page. Any other suggestions? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , well, I was hoping that this had been resolved, but, no I'm not surprised it hasn't. I haven't looked at PA in a while, but, I did notice the recent spate of edit-warring as the article is on my watchlist. Conversely, however, I have stayed as far away from SP as humanly possible to avoid mixing conflicts. I had tried to help out at the PA article by bringing it up to B-class, but, when looking for sources to actually write the article I come up against the blockade that many useful sources are in French. Je ne parlez Francais (I think that's how you say it). Instead I then tried piece by piece to resolve the conflict on the talk page. Then came the new blockade, Launebee would implement some of my recommendations and also return the old content back into the article. XIII would then revert the change on the grounds that I had approved only some of the change. Which, to be fair, was accurate. The problem is, the improvements disappear with the reverts as well. Rinse and repeat. Zero sum game. Nothing short of a T/PBAN will resolve this. The article is under the watchful eyes of both editors and long term protection (even six months) will only put a halt on this conflict for that period. If there is a COI, for either editor, then that's all they're really here for as well. Just skim the last 500 edits and note that there's large (2-4 month gaps) between high activity periods (due to the conflict) starting in June of 2016. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Burebista
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Burebista you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Sports
I want to translate articles regarding Italian sports from Italian version removing redirects on Pallone: do you understand my constructive intention?--Nonhosoldi (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi Mr rnddude, thank you for your comments at my RfA. I hope that I'll be able to answer your concerns with my actions rather than my words, since that clearly failed horribly. Cheers, ansh 666 00:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , I did take a look at the two links your re-provided me from question 3. I should say I'm more concerned with how you'll respond when you make a mistake, as will inevitably happen, rather than how you respond to queries suggesting you've made a mistake where you haven't. The measure of an admin is in their ability to deal with the errors in judgement that they make, not the good judement they exercise. Any admin can issue a good block, or delete the right page, etc etc. Far less often, in my experience, is an admin (person, really) able to admit to, and respond appropriate to, their error. Good luck and congratulations on passing your RfA. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

A complaint I have recieved
I am requesting administrative review over my link to the Rational Wiki webpage about William Lane Craig:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig

I am trying to include a link to the RationalWiki article on Dr. Craig:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig

My edit, I believe, is perfectly legitimate. Wikipedia is not a "Reasonable Faith" website nor a Dr. Craig fan club. Readers can decide and judge for themselves.


 * Umm... content discussions don't belong on my talk page, but, administrator's feel free to review as I am currently writing up a post on the article in question; William Lane Craig. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heinkel He 112, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Undercarriage ([//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Heinkel_He_112 check to confirm] | [//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Heinkel_He_112?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Burebista
The article Burebista you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Burebista for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversaries
Thank you for, and the approach of using feathers rather than the crowbar! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , has it already been a year? it's so soon. I've taken something of a break from ze dramahs in favour of working on Heinkel He 112. The article it mostly fleshed out, but, is in desperate need of referencing. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am rarely seen in the Great Dismal Swamp, but when it comes to denying talk page access, I have spoken. - Excellent work on the plane! I am looking for references for Ein feste Burg - in a sandbox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Burebista
The article Burebista you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Burebista for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Gee fizz
You gonna send that RfA comment to peer review? :P  G M G  talk   21:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not enough inline citations, aha :) Mr rnddude (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello
After your clerking action here, another edit removed your sign and people get ticked off about that for some reason, so I've gone ahead and reinstated it for you. Good day. :) -- QEDK ( 愛  •  海 ) 03:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Yeah, I'd left a comment with the clerking action, so my comment and sig were moved to the talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you double-check that I did this correctly? It appears that non-admins can perform these minor clerking duties and I attempted to use the same format that you did with #2. Any cleanup welcome and apologies in advance if I overstepped. Montanabw (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , yes it looks good, just remove the "#" from the comments. The hash is only used on the RfA main page for formatting numbers (refer to below my comment for example of why all comments have # on RfA main page). You didn't have to follow my section title style as that was done because Francis didn't want their name to appear in the heading, the standard practice is to write "Example username's oppose" for the section title. In any case, the link works and the move is documented on both the RfA and the talk. That's all the really matters. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

!vote format: Example issue with formatting numbers. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A: Support cause why not?
 * B: But why doe?
 * C: Per A
 * D: Hiya!
 * E: You rekt the numbering D.
 * F: Per above.


 * Looks like it got fixed for me. That one fell under the heading of "I did know that, but my over-50-year-old-eyes didn't catch it in the editing window!" thanks.  LOL!  Montanabw (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I did that because the formatting of the comments was getting quite broken and people were super-indenting. You can see that in this version of the page compared to this one. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * People typically don't copy over the vote itself, and I took personal issue with it since it just made cross-examination difficult, so I did it for the first one. Happy to see it being picked up, yaaass. -- QEDK ( 愛  •  海 ) 15:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Burebista
Alex ShihTalk 00:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia
 Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards! --Codrin.B (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!


Happy Halloween!

Hello Mr rnddude: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  Linguist un Eins uno 20:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.


 * Hey, thanks for the Halloween cheer. Hope you had a good one. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

SN54129
does this mean your retirement is temporary? Mr rnddude (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed: embarrassingly so. It might have been a slight overreaction, but can't take any chances these days eh. Hope all's well! Serial  Number  54129 09:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Good to know you're not leaving permanently, or at least, not yet. I've been good, not much in the way of editing the past month, but, with Christmas approaching I've been busy. I just log in every now and then and see what the "haps" is. Sorry about your doxxing, though why a co-worker would do it I can't imagine. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)