User talk:Richwales/Archives/2011-09

Cocaine Blues
(including material copied from User talk:Mnealon and User talk:RepublicanJacobite)

Hi. I was confused by [ this edit] at Cocaine Blues (western swing song), which looks like a significant removal of content. Since you appear to have been doing constructive work on this page, I resisted my initial rash impulse to revert this change and decided to ask first. What's going on? Did this deleted material go somewhere else? Was it in fact not worth putting anywhere else? Sorry if I'm simply missing something here. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 05:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for not acting rashly. The original article conflated several songs with the same name so I moved the original to Cocaine Blues (western swing song) and in its place I moved the section on other songs with the same name to the new disambiguation page I created at Cocaine Blues.Mnealon (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What you did was act without consulting your fellow editors or engaging in any discussion. The fact is, all of these different versions are related and should be discussed in one place. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  01:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you may have intended to write this at User talk:Mnealon — he was the person who split up the Cocaine Blues article. I simply asked Mnealon what was going on, after I noticed the major change (as reported by STiki) and was confused. If you meant instead that you felt I had done something wrong here (even though, in fact, I never touched Cocaine Blues), I'd be grateful if you could clarify. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. I was responding to his message on your page, because he had not responded to my message on the article talk page.  I was not accusing you of anything, I assure you. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  01:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

RfA Reform update
Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.

I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:
 * Have a look at the min requirement proposal and familiarise yourself with the statistics, I'd appreciate comment on where we should put the bar.
 * Any final comments would be appreciated on the clerks proposal.
 * Feedback on the two newer proposals - Pre-RfA & RfA reform 2011/Sysop on request. Both are more radical reforms of RfA and might run along side the current system.

Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

Interwiki bot problem (en:Decapitation)
[copied here from the user talk page of JAn Dudík on the Czech Wikipedia]

Hi. Your bot created an interwiki link between the English article en:Decapitation and the Vietnamese article vi:Decapitated. The link was removed by the bot a few minutes after it was created, but I felt I should still let you know about the issue.

The English article is about death by beheading. The Vietnamese article, as far as I can tell, is about a "heavy metal" rock band. These two articles are not related and should (obviously, I believe) not be interwiki-linked, but I've seen this incorrect link show up in the English page at least twice in the past before your bot did it a few hours ago.

Is there anything you need to do so that your bot won't make this mistake again? More generally, is there anything you or anyone else can do to stop this particular interwiki link from showing up by whatever means in the en:Decapitation article?

Thanks for any help. Rich wales (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, bot added wrong link, but I noticed it and removed it few minutes later. The bot which initiated this mess was USer:Cheers!-bot. JAn 18:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? As best I can tell, en:User:Cheers!-bot has been blocked on the English Wikipedia since February 2011.  And the earlier instances of this incorrect link (in August 2011) were done by en:User:KamikazeBot and en:User:AvicBot.  Is there anything to be gained if I talk to the people who run those two bots?  Or do I really need to talk to someone at the Vietnamese Wikipedia?     Rich wales (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Both groups have now correct interwiki, so no bot will mix it again in autonomous mode. in this edit Cheersbot added incorrect links to vi: article. JAn 18:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I won't worry about this problem any more, then.   Rich wales (talk) 19:04, 8 September 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) 15:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a note...

 * How are you placed this weekend? In terms of time? Wifione  Message 04:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll probably have time during the later afternoon and the evening on Saturday, and possibly also during the same time span on Sunday. (US Pacific time).   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 04:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great. So would you be comfortable to go live on Saturday evening or on Sunday evening? That's because once we transclude, at least for the initial questions, you should have the time to answer patiently...  Wifione  Message 04:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a second person who says he'll co-nom if you co-nom first. :-) If you're ready to put your co-nom statement on the page, let me know and I'll tell the other person (so he can see it and know he'll be the second).  As for when I go live, I'd prefer mid-afternoon (my time) on Saturday; or, if we miss that, then mid-afternoon on Sunday.  Can I assume this means you've gone over my statement, my initial answers, and the stuff I e-mailed you, and you feel it's all OK?   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 04:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, perfectly alright. Great then. Expect an email from me tomorrow morn. Best. Wifione  Message 06:42, 15 September 2011 (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 recommendations. 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 in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

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) 17:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Beat the 'crat congrats
Well done Rich, congratulations on  a well  deserved result. Proves that your  dozens of vote-stacked co-nominators were right, and the opposers were wrong. I still  just  wish  the candidates could get  through  all  this without  the silly  drama. So welcome to  the club  of most  hated Wikipedians :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :-)  Rich wales (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

✭ Official Uniform T-Shirt of the Cabal ✭

 * Thanks. I will display this proudly on my user page.   Rich wales (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Protection
Looks good - you applied the right template, left a notice, etc.   Will Beback    talk    06:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)

The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to  these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.

A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising  the project  pages, researching  statistics and keeping  them  up  to  date. You'll also see for example that  we have recently  made tables to  compare how other Wikipedias choose  their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.

The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on  specific issues of our  admin  selection  process and to develop  RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that  all Wikipedia policy changes take a long  time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to  be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.

The object of WP:RFA2011 is not  to make it  either  easier or harder to  become an admin -  those criteria are set by  those who  !vote at  each  RfA. By providing  a unique venue for developing ideas for  change independent  of  the general discussion  at  WT:RFA, the project has two  clearly  defined goals: The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project  pages to  suggest  and discuss ideas that are not  strictly  within  the remit  of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they  will  offer maximum exposure to  the broader community, rather than individual  projects in  user space.
 * 1) Improving the environment  that  surrounds RfA in  order to  encourage mature, experienced editors of the right  calibre to  come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their  time to  admin  tasks.
 * 2) Discouraging, in the nicest  way  possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to  guide them towards the advice pages.

We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in  order to  build consensus.

New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.

Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any  editors are always welcome on  the project's various talk  pages. The main reasons  why  WT:RfA was never successful in  getting  anything  done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody  remembers them and where they  are hard to  find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on  the founder's talk  page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 16:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Congratulations
Congratulations on successfully navigating the gauntlet that is RFA. You should see some new buttons now. Happy adminning, – xeno talk 20:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

We finally got it right this time! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well done Rich! --Mkativerata (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You finally got the mop and bucket. Now get to work cleaning up this mess! ;)   Will Beback    talk    21:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Your order is in, Congrats. Mlpearc Public  ( Talk )  21:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Congrats, Rich! You've done a fantastic job addressing the concerns of your first RfA, and you're more than deserving of the overwhelming support you got. :) Best regards,  Swarm   00:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You deserved it! And I'm very pleased the community has agreed. Best wishes always. Remember the ground rule for any admin action - "When in doubt, don't do it!" :)  Wifione  Message 07:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too. I hope you don't feel too bruised after that process. -- Deadly&forall;ssassin 07:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all of you for your supportive thoughts and comments.  Rich wales (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well done and enjoy the mop!  Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere!  (Whisper...) 09:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Star Dust (aircraft)
(including material copied from User talk:N419BH)

I have begun the GA review of this article.  N419 BH  20:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. I agree that an image or two of the crash site or the debris field would be helpful.  The only such images I've ever seen so far are non-free material (from books and TV); and since there is already one fair-use image (the photo of the aircraft), I had hesitated to add more.  If you think it's really important, though — and especially if you think a photo of the wreckage is essential to GA quality — let me know and I'll see what I can come up with.   Rich wales (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The GA criteria call for "images where possible and appropriate" (emphasis mine). I did see the copyrighted images on the PBS site while verifying sources. Short of grabbing a DSLR and a backpack and climbing the darn mountain though I think it'd be pretty hard to find images. Perhaps some exist from the new accident report? I know NTSB images are public domain but I'm not sure regarding images from Chilean/Argentinean government agencies. Might be something to look into. I also would like to see the new report cited if it's available. So far the new investigation is only cited once.  N419 BH  21:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me do a bit of cleanup on the second paragraph of the "STENDEC" section.  Rich wales (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I reworked the paragraph in question, with more cites (and one additional source). I can work on it more if you would like.  Let me know.   Rich wales (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I added another source for the 2000 Argentine air force investigation. This source (The Guardian) is really just an echo of the earlier source (The Birmingham Post, as reported by thefreelibrary.com), but some people might find this new source to be of better quality because the info is from The Guardian's own web site rather than being reported via a third-party site.  I've done some searching for the actual Argentine air force report, but so far without success.  I'll keep looking.   Rich wales (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help. Per your suggestions, I'll keep looking for additional material that might improve this article.   Rich wales (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I added a photo of the intact wheel found amidst the Star Dust wreckage. This is a screen shot from a TV show, used under a fair use justification — probably the best that can be done, though it's possible (albeit IMO unlikely) that a free photo could be found at some future date.  I'll continue to look for a copy of the 2000 Argentine air force report.   Rich wales (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)