User talk:Panoptical/Archive 3

Arbitration clerks
Thank you for your note on my talkpage regarding becoming an arbitration committee clerk trainee. I appreciate your having noticed my becoming a Clerk the other day and expressing your interest. Just so you know, trainees and helpers work for the Arbitration Committee as a whole, so it is not set up so that I would have my own personal trainee or subordinate (it's a nice idea though :) although I would never call anyone on Wikipedia a subordinate to anyone else, we're all equals here). In my case, I started out by helping out with routine maintenance on the arbitration pages and things moved on from there. That is probably how future trainees will be chosen also. However, you might want to express your interest to User:Thatcher131, who is the most experienced clerk right now and has been coordinating selection. Thanks again for your interest and good luck! Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Rwandan Genocide
Hi Diez, please reconsider the Rwandan Genocide nomination to a good article. It's uncited, tagged, POV and incorrect in many parts of the text (fails on almost all criteria). It is rated as Start-class and there is no way it can pass Good article.--Pethr 02:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, that is a bloody horrible article. I usually nominate article for GA status after they have been the subject of an ACID. I really didn't look at this one, though. Diez2 12:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Diez, I thought so. Next time you might want to give it a brief look so someone doesn't have to review it. Thank you.--Pethr 22:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rwandan Genocide
The article Rwandan Genocide you nominated as a good article has failed, see Talk:Rwandan Genocide for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a review. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 15:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep of George W. Bush GAR
Do you know who "speed kept" the George W. Bush GAR? The GAR was closed due to withdrawal of the GAR nomination but if GAR follows similar procedures to AFD (which is from where we have inherited the "speedy keep" nomenclature) then the decision was out of process: one can not withdraw a nomination after others have contested it. I don't object to the "Keep" result but I do object to speedily keeping to the manner in which the discussion was closed. --ElKevbo 15:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate a response to my latest question and concerns on my Talk page as I honestly believe you acted out of process and I don't want that to become a continuing pattern. --ElKevbo 21:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions
This is a friendly reminder to be sure, when proposing an article for deletion using prod to include a reason in the tag, by adding. Also, please make sure the reason you give is explicit about your concern regarding the article. Thanks! --Tikiwont 16:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Prod Problem with you
Stop it with prodding chemical compunds! I am going through each and every article and removing the prod tag. Once the prod tag is removed you have to use Afd procedure. --Parker007 21:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

importance/notability
Regarding the difference between the importance and the notability tag. I think it is important that there is a tag, that tells that an article does not state its importance. That is what the template importance is used for (apparently amongst other uses). One can choose to rewrite the importance tag so that it is saying the same as the notability, but then there would be no tag that states that an article is notable, but does not state its importance. If it would not be there I would create such a tag, and put that onto these articles. Now the thing with articles that don't state importance is, that they may indeed not be important. Hence, it would be good to categorise them into a category for articles that need to be checked for notability. And that is exactly what is done at this moment with the importance-tag. The problem is, that the incorporation of articles into that category does result in them being AfD-d or prodded. Now, as such I do not have a problem with that, when that would be done by people who would be able to assess the notability of a subject.

Result is now, that we are discussing in the wikiproject chemistry to retag all these chemicals with a tag for the chemistry wikiproject, creating our own notability-category, and they may stay there, because we have also other things to do. Having them in the general notability category would have the result that more people would see the article needs to be improved, and hence the chances are bigger that someone actually takes the effort to add an importance to them (a bit of pressure onto the wikiproject every now and then from the wikiproject notability might also help gaining that interest).

I brought this up at the wikiproject Notability (and you did answer to that once), but there seems no discussion going on there; though I think it is the right place to find consensus on this 'problem'.

I hope this is a bit clearer. I am sorry if I sound (a bit) cynical or frustrated, but this comes up every so many weeks. I know there is a backlog, but IMHO, deleting them all is a drastic and wrong solution to the problem, since many of these subjects are notable (also see earlier AfD's of articles in this category). What IMHO needs to be done is that these articles get improved (and others and I have done some of that already), but well, there is so much work to be done, and we are all just volunteers. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 3

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

Active user verification
Hello,. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:USRD, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/List. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list and off the respective road projects as well. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You are still listed on the Admin coaching request page
Your name is still listed at Requests for an admin coach. If you are no longer looking for a coach, or you currently have one, please remove yourself from that list.

The instructions for getting or receiving a coach have changed. It's now a self-help process: just look for a coach from the list of coaches, and contact one. See the instructions on Admin coaching. Good luck.

Thank you.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   01:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Editor Review
I reviewed you. YechielMan 04:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 4

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 5

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 00:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Boris Stomakhin mediation case
Dear Diez. I have asked 3 more issues from arbitrators. Most importantly I expect you to rule on reliability of the two posted citations and their consistence with BLP policy. You must rule unambbiguously on these matters, because Biophys already disagrees with your decision. I would be very grateful to you if you would react quickly. Our case is already protracted for three months. Vlad fedorov 07:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 6

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 22:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Inactive
No problem. As with inactive pages in general, you are welcome to "reactivate" them and continue editing (although for this to be effective, it is recommended that you advertise it).  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Reported
Template:Reported has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — coe l acan — 00:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

ACID
I'm sorry I havn't notified users latly, has had other things on my mind lately. If you want, you could either poke on me if I should notify users, or perhaps you your self could run a bot. The code I'm using is:

{{hidden|Diff: wikipedia.py| Index: wikipedia.py

=
====================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/pywikipediabot/pywikipedia/wikipedia.py,v retrieving revision 1.867 diff --unified -B -b -r1.867 wikipedia.py --- wikipedia.py       24 Apr 2007 22:58:32 -0000      1.867 +++ wikipedia.py       25 Apr 2007 09:38:28 -0000 @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@    isRedirectPage (*)    : True if the page is a redirect, false otherwise isEmpty (*)          : True if the page has 4 characters or less content, not counting interwiki and category links +      botMayEdit (*)        : True if bot is allowed to edit page interwiki (*)        : The interwiki links from the page (list of Pages) categories (*)       : The categories the page is in (list of Pages) linkedPages (*)      : The normal pages linked from the page (list of Pages) @@ -681,6 +682,65 @@        ns = self.namespace return ns >= 0 and ns % 2 == 1

+   def botMayEdit(self): +       """ +        True if page doesn't contain  or  or +        contains them and active bot is allowed or not allowed +        to edit said page +        """ +       import re; +       p = re.compile(r"\{\{(?P bots|nobots)\|?(?P  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Pascal.Tesson 21:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Version 0.7 scope
Hi, thanks for helping out (and even fixing a strikout - thanks!). Can you give us your thoughts here? Thanks, Walkerma 03:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed your "Can we decide" post, I got very busy a week ago. Anyway, I've set up a couple of votes so we can hopefully come to a consensus.  Please vote!  Thank you for your very helpful contributions to the discussion.  Also, please join us for the IRC meeting on Sunday if you can.  Thanks, Walkerma 02:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. You mentioned that you would be willing to moderate the held nominations page. Is that offer still open? It shouldn't be too much work, but it would be great if you could handle this, my plate is pretty full already! Cheers, Walkerma 03:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

template article history
Way are you adding Good article o hold to the template? it was decided early on that it would do templates like that or FAC, could you disscus such changes on the template talk page? The Placebo Effect 21:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant would NOT do. sorry for any confusion. The Placebo Effect 21:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 8

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — Vsh Bot (t • c) 19:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog elimination drive
This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :GAReview underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 9

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — Vsh Bot (t • c) 16:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability
Sorry. I did not know that I had joined that WikiProject. I am sorry for the inconvenience. Dreamy 17:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Becoming the "ACID Director"
Is there a way in which you can take over in rolling the ACID collaboration? I did it for about 9 weeks, but then moved on. I'm now seeing that no one else has stepped up to the plate... yet. So, please reply on my talk page. Thank you! Diez2 12:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. What exactly does the director do? —  Pious 7  11:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 10

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — Vsh Bot (t • c) 04:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edits to Requests for checkuser/Case
I recommend that you see this regarding linking to dates on that page as you did here. Fun Pika  11:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive
A new elimination drive of the backlog at Good article candidates  will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :GAReview underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 23:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Just what you want: another checkuser request ...
Sorry to bother you; what I have isn't actually a checkuser request (I've already filed this one), but instead a request to expedite the request. In fact, there's been absolutely no action at all taken on this; according to someone who I asked for help on this (Antandrus), the request may have some problems with it that are preventing its being acted upon. (Their comments are here.)

Could you check this request and tell me if it's in the right place, properly formatted, etc.? And if I could bother you just a little more, would you be willing to help shepherd it through if it isn't? Obviously, I don't know all the ins and outs of this procedure. There's still a need for this checkuser to be done, I believe, based on this editor's continuing behavior. I don't want to throw the "sockpuppet" epithet around carelessly without actually knowing whether or not they're using those things.

Thanks a million! +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Seconded. This issue should be settled sooner rather than later so we can proceed to other things. - Richfife 19:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 15:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

please stay off my project
I noticed this edit and I gotta ask you to please not do stuff like that again --Rebent 02:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)