User talk:Rcsprinter123/Archives/28

Maps
Hi! I'm a bit confused as to why you're using the map_custom field - perhaps we could adjust the size of the maps for the UK in the template, and then not have to use that field? I say this because it would be better to add the maps to Wikidata instead, so that they can be used by all language Wikipedias. --Rschen7754 16:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ensuing discussion held on IRC.  Rcsprinter,  (deliver)  @ 21:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Olga Bondareva
It's generally not a good idea to nominate for speedy A7 a page of a person from a particular nation that has an equivalent in that nation's language's WP, without at least looking at it. (Not that they're always notable in enWP--though she certainly is-- but if they have an established p., they are very rarely a speedy) It's also a little over-hasty to nominate for speedy an article about someone who discovered something that has an article in the enWP, as was indicated in the infobox.  DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Two Curious Puppies

 * Fictional animal do not qualify for speedy A7., and something "not notable enough for its own article" needs merging, not deletion. Please recheck WP:CSD and WP:Deletion policy before making more such deletion nominations. It's all too easy to drift from the standards. (I've done it myself from time to time)  DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Please remove the Pricasso link on the main page
This is likely the most controversial article on Wikipedia right now. User:Russavia is in the process of being de-bureaucrated for trolling Jimbo with this article. There is no way this would get through the DYK process if it had been brought to the attention of large numbers of Wikipedians. In short this is a pretty "good" example of what's wrong with Wikipedia/Commons governance. Please remove asap. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 00:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I cannot because:
 * a) that's not a proper reason
 * b) only administrators can edit a protected page.
 * So you will have to ask somebody else.  Rcsprinter  (articulate)  @ 05:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ashkenazi Jews
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ashkenazi Jews. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rcsprinter123 2
Hi. Whatever the outcome of Requests for adminship/Rcsprinter123 2 I do still think that you'll be mopping up around here some day. My comments about looking to support (made in the previous RfA) still stand. All the best, and well done for putting yourself forward! -- Trevj (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Trev. I'll just keep working.  Rcsprinter   (Gimme a message)  @ 15:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 August newsletter
This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:
 * , a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
 * , another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
 * , 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
 * , a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
 * , the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
 * , who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
 * , a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
 * 1) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final:, , , , , , ,. Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 05:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

RfA result and obligatory consolatory message
As you may have guessed, I have prematurely closed your most recent RFA as unsuccessful. I didn't see any indication of the discussion turning in your favor and frankly it would be better for everyone if it were closed. I wish you the best of luck with your future Wikipedia endeavors. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand; thanks anyway, Marcus!  Rcsprinter  (talk)  @ 10:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you  can address the issues over the next 12 months, you  may  even find me a strong  supporter next  time round. Time goes fast - well, it  does at  my  age ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Your note
You shouldn't take adverse comments or votes at RfA as personal attacks. The comments (especially in failed RfAs) are supposed to give the candidate hints how to improve. In the first place, I only elaborated on your user page layout after having been asked to do it. Secondly, my suspicion of your "hat-collecting" was inferred from the user page layout, so it is a very good beginning for your next RfA that you changed it. User pages of admins are supposed to be "inviting" so that people who seek help don't get put off, overwhelmed or sidetracked. In a general way, I suggest you go on to work in admin-related areas (like non-admin closures of AfD, CSD tagging, PROD, etc) which do not require admin status, but show that you understand policy and proceedings. Most voters IMO do forgive earlier missteps if the candidate shows real improvement over the more recent past. Cheers. Kraxler (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Condolences and advice
It looks like your RfA was sunk, in part, by an issue you hadn't been aware of. This is unfortunate, since it is hard to prepare to address an issue if you don't know of it and you have my sympathy. If I may, I would suggest that you prepare some sort of statement to address it in your next RfA (perhaps by answering my belated question at this one?) and that you make yourself known at the copyright boards so that the "established" contributors to them can say whether or not your comments reflect the general understanding of the rest of the 'pedia. Perhaps even wait until one of them is up to nominating/co-nominating you for the next RfA. As for the rest, good luck and happy editing! – Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well done for getting twice the number of supporters than last time, and very sorry about my 3RR cock-up. All the best for next time, assuming you can explain how various concerns have been addressed. Cheers. { -- Trevj (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)