Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi
I noticed you have rejected many of my file rename requests providing a rationale Reason for moving the file not covered by WP:FMV/W
All reasons need not be covered in the article.Please see [1] and [2] in which the rename was done even without a valid rationale as you claim.As far as my knowledge goes, renames are done for ease of use and identification.Please self-revert or move the pages yourself.It makes no sense to reject rename requests just because you find the rationale a bit out of the WP:FMV/W.Thanks and a happy new year TheStrikeΣagle07:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Some other links in case you want to oppose my view: 1, 2, 3. TheStrikeΣagle07:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hey! Happy new year! I hope you're having a great time with your family :) I'm sorry but I'd have to decline your request. Files are moved only if it's necessary, not for ease of use and identification. If there is no reason to move a file covered in WP:FMV/W, then the file shouldn't be moved. If other users move the file without taking into consideration what the policy say, that's their behaviour, but I won't. I'd really like to perform them, but I consider that moving File:Extra+Virginity.jpg to File:Extra Virginity.jpg is not necessary because it falls under what the policy explicitly says we shouldn't do: "it's best to leave all files with generally valid names at their locations, even if slightly better names may exist." I know that we have to make exemptions, and I was tempted to move File:YouNeedMe.jpg to its new location, but I hesitated about it because I didn't find it worthy (the image is non-free and its used in one article). I'd be glad to expand further about this, if you wish; and I apologize that I can't be of any help. — ΛΧΣ2107:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi again. It's Wiki Cup time and I've signed up, but the thing is, I'm sort of confused about what everything in my submissions mean. I know a few, but not all. Also, I'm wondering is it that if you've worked on an article significantly, or if you nominated it that it counts as a FA, GA, etc, or not. Thanks for your time, but if you don't know, just tell me, thanks again! --Lucky102 (talk) 12:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hey! Lets start with the meanings I guess: FA (featured article), GA (good article), FL (featured list), FP (featured picture), FPO (featured portal), FT (featured topic), GT (good topic), DYK (did you know), ITN (in the news) and GAR (good article review). Everything you submit has to be significantly worked by you in this year (2013) and nominated (or co-nominated) by you in 2013, and between each submission period. The points are given after the article reaches the status (or in the case of GA reviews, after you close the review). Don't worry too much about it :) I can help you at any moment as well as the judges :) — ΛΧΣ2116:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Good question, and one I can answer without giving you some sort of lie (I have no idea). The best I can do is to ask J Milburn. He, as the director of the WikiCup, is able to answer that question to you. Regards. — ΛΧΣ2121:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Hahc21, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:
The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started and completed the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.
Oh, well. What I meant is that colos + text inside the box are enough to meet WP:ACCESS. There is no need of a symbol. Also, why did you expand the lead? Remember to keep it pretty short or you will face users opposing your FLC... — ΛΧΣ2117:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I know but that user started objection over that earlier part also. I thought let show him the earlier version which didn't had any issues. If I get more opposes on this lead then I would use your lead. But, for now lets hope it works. —PKS:1142·(TALK)17:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Hahc21, I see that you are a member of Wikiproject Venezuela and I had some questions about sources. I posted this on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and I haven't gotten any responses. Can you help? Justiciero1811 (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Okay. When talking about news from Venezuela, the most reliable sources are well-established newspaper and several websites. As far as I can see, El Universal is the one to trust and follow. It is a very well establshed newspaper (I buy it every week or so although it is daily) and it rarely publishes false information. Press releases are to be treated with extra care if they come from the Venezuelan government, which has been the subject of many controversies regarding the veracity of information published by them (take the current health of Hugo Chavez as an example). My guess is to always try to find information from the most reliable sources, and those with no relationship with the government (if possible). Anyways, you can ask me whenever you need help with those. Regards. — ΛΧΣ2100:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the info! Would it be ok with you if I copied and pasted what you wrote above onto the RSN page? I want to make it easier for other people to find. Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
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!
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
If you want more time to write the FE, I can stop the bot and we can use another bot that delivers newsletters (I have access to Edwardsbot).--Dom497 (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Looking at the earliest time the bot has sent out a newsletter before, if you ain't finished in 5 - 10 minutes, I'm pulling the plug.--Dom497 (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I gotta go now, so hopefully everything works. PS, I would never had the motive to do what you just did, I would have just waited 'till the 7th :p --Dom497 (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. But I enjoy doing it manually. The bot won't have the same order and perfection I have when archiving my talk page :P — ΛΧΣ2106:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Bringing back old memories, I remember when we met each other :) Good ol' times! I'ts been a pleasure to have you as a friend, and as my true first wikifriend here. A brindis for the future! — ΛΧΣ2106:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
(raises wine bottle) Here's another year. It's funny how one little thing can make all the difference. I saw the potential on you when I saw your work Independiente, and that's how it got all started. I really we can got more members. Erick (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yeah (drinks a bit of wine). I didn't know, at that time, that I was about to accomplish so much here. If you'd never pinged my talk page back in March, maybe I'd not be here, talking to you. Even when I technically started working here in September 2011 (when I got the strength enough to start Ricardo Arjona discography, which suddently became my first FL), I really got into this thing of being a Wikipedian in March, and all because of your guidance and help :') — ΛΧΣ2106:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Mmm yeah. I believe in potential and I know a good editor when I see one. That's how I got you and DivaKnockouts really good. Now for some bad news, I may not have Internet access due to financial issues in my house for a while. We'll see what happens tomorrow. Erick (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Just as an fyi, no I didn't stop the bot, something is wrong with it....again. I'm just going to send it through the other bot now.--Dom497 (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Aw, its cute, although for sexuality reasons, I'd avoid using different colours for the ribbons. I'd chose a single neutral color for both, but that's just me thinking too much :) — ΛΧΣ2117:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I had grey in mind, but its too masculine and opaque; women will rage about it. I also don't think that the regular green will be enough... Hmmm what about red? or orange? or red and orange? (ugh weird). Hmmm or green and yellow, like Google Chrome's logo. — ΛΧΣ2117:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Best wishes for the New Year!
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!
Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.
Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians!
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Razr Nation/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 15:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Okay, thanks. Generally we don't mention stuff like that in project newsletters, because either it will a) be downright embarrassing or b) will encourage them to get more recognition and keep disrupting the site. --Rschen775421:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oh, well. I guess we learn new things every day. I did it because she was part of the project as an active reviewer and I thought it deserved a mention; bad idea, though. Thanks for the notice, Rschen. — ΛΧΣ2121:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I liked the newsletter better when "Two crucial users leave the project" was true. Recognition of quality contributions and reviews seems not such a terrible idea to me. (But now, of course, I have no history with Mattisse, knowing her only from User:Philcha, "I can't write this without becoming overwhelmed with a painful sorrow. He was so upbeat and special and above all, kind. He had just written me that he had already lived two years beyond the one year he was given after diagnosis, but his deterioration was evident. He never complained.") --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
I have been a Wikipedia editor for quite a while, however I took a 2 year break and want to get into the swing of things again. As of right now, I still run my bot, fix vandalism, and do some tasks around CFD. The areas that I am lacking skill in is content creation as well as deletion discussions/CSD. I was wondering if you wanted to mentor me in these areas? CrimsonBlue (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I think of some questions I'd have to do to know where to start: Have you ever written an article? Which is your best content contribution to date? Have you got a DYK credit? Have you checked the new notability polcies? (This las one will be worked with me together). — ΛΧΣ2101:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Okay; good. We'd start with the most important: when you left, the WP:BLP policy was established? I'd like to start with the several notability policies to refresh memories. We'll start off with the notability policies that are related to the topics you want to work in. — ΛΧΣ2101:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes it was established, however I don't remember much about it. I find writing about criminals pretty interesting, but I don't know what other content areas I want to work in. CrimsonBlue (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
When you say criminals, you mean murderers, thiefs and the like? If that's so, then the WP:BLP policy will be crucial for living criminals. Also, the general criteria corresponding to criminals is WP:CRIME. You may want to take a look. I think those are the best places to start. After you update youself with the criteria of inclusion, we can continue with the next phase, wich would be DYK/GA or XfD/CSD, whichever you want first :) — ΛΧΣ2102:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, you may like to spend a time testing these new knowledge by participating a bit on AFD... I guess that you have participated there before no? DYK hasn't changed a lot, so I think we can go first with XfD. CSD is a bit more difficult than the former, so we'll take the easy route :) — ΛΧΣ2103:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The RFC for TAFI is nearing it's conclusion, and it's time to hammer out the details over at the project's talk page. There are several details of the project that would do well with wider input and participation, such as the article nomination and selection process, the amount and type of articles displayed, the implementation on the main page and other things. I would like to invite you to comment there if you continue to be interested in TAFI's development. --NickPenguin(contribs)02:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Santa María de La Cabeza castle, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I am editing 2013 in the United States at the moment to add in the deaths, but the references seem to have gone a little funny, I will never be able to fix it, would you possibly be able to? I'm only on January 2, though, so should I add in the deaths for the rest of the dates first?--Lucky102 (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
When you say funny, you talk about all the urls that are there? I can fixe them for you of course :) And then, I'll show you how to make them look sexy xD — ΛΧΣ2118:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I see. Why that IP hasn't been warned for unexplained removal of content? The IP has done that twice. Continue expanding the list, Lucky. If that IP reverts you again, come here at my talk and I'll handle things. I am a bit shocked about this. I'll see if I can make the references pretty for you today. — ΛΧΣ2121:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latin American performer
Thank you for quality articles on games and albums, such as Sinistar: Unleashed, for featured lists on Latin American performers, such as Ricardo Arjona discography, for reviewing more than 100 Good articles, and for the recognition of the merits of others in their quality contributions and reviews, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, just because it seems like you know a lot of tech stuff (I think you do), do you know if I can covert an Adobe Flash animation to a type of file that is allowed on Wikipedia?--Dom497 (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Let me see. It is indeed possible. Actually, can you send me the original .swf file? Also, if you designed the flash animation, I mean, if you have the source .fla file, much better.... — ΛΧΣ2101:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Okay. I have college again too and I'm very busy studying (three different mathematics at the same time, craziness!). — ΛΧΣ2119:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Solid-fuel rocket, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exhaust (check to confirm | 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.
Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
Hahc21, I just saw on my watchlist that you've nominated this article for GAN just two days after I did the GAR and delisted it. I have to tell you that, having looked at it, I do not believe it is ready yet. You have made improvements, but it still needs a thorough copyedit. I'd like to ask you to voluntarily withdraw it immediately. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I asked two copyeditors to take a look, and left a note that a reviewer with expertise on castles would be preferred. I don't expect an easy pass and I know that it still needs some work; I believe that the only way I can completely fix it is under the eyes of an experienced castles writer, and that can be done at GAN. — ΛΧΣ2115:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Frankly, if the copyedit had not been completed an hour ago, I would have failed the nomination just now. The time to bring in the copyeditors is before you resubmit, not after, and you're lucky that one of them was available so quickly. And, for that matter, a peer review by a castles writer could have also been done before resubmitting as well. I'm disappointed you chose to resubmit so quickly, and with an article you knew was still in problematic shape.
Incidentally, I was wondering whether the article name should perhaps be "Santa María de la Cabeza castle" with a lowercase "la", as it is in the titles of a couple of your sources. (The article on the saint herself uses lowercase.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I wondered the same thing and, frankly, don't understand the unseemly haste with this article. An encyclopedia should be built with thought, not speed, and the articles themselves are more important than their editors. Miniapolis03:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I have no haste. It will probably take a week or two before it is reviewed. So, I saw no harm by listing it immediately so that I could fix the issues and at the same time have it already awaiting a review at GAN. I have no hurry. I am building a good topic of about 14 articles and this will take time. — ΛΧΣ2106:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I don't quite understand your dissapointment. GAN represents improvement. As I wasn't able to fix it by myself completely, I was sure that the reviewer would have. That's how the process works. Only a rough minor percent of the articles submitted at GAN are close to the standard when nominated. Also, I find interesting the approach you've taken with this article. The way you've been so interested on its quality development thrills me; maybe it's just me watching ghosts where there are none. With regard to the change of name, I have no problem. If you think that a lowercase "la" is correct, then you are very welcome to rename it :) — ΛΧΣ2121:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
My disappointment is that I had just spent a great deal of time doing my first-ever GAR—it's not pleasant having to tell someone that their baby is not only not at a certain level, but worse having to do so after they had been told it was—pointing out where and how the article fell short of GA after it had inexplicably been given the green plus sign. As it says right at the top of the GAN page, "If you believe an article meets the Good article criteria, you may nominate it". While I can understand you believing it the first time you nominated the article, but when you renominated it today, you had to know it wasn't close to meeting those criteria, since I'd just told you it had major prose problems, and you hadn't yet had anyone look it over for you. Sure, a great many articles aren't close to the GA level the first time they are nominated. But they ought to be the next time around, and the author should certainly have attempted to address the various points raised in the previous review before renominating it. To renominate two days after being delisted without the requested major copyedit completed? I don't see how that can be justified. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
It was technically my first GAR too. And the first time one of my articles was delisted. It felt very bad; I have to admit I felt discouraged after that, even when I knew that you were right. I'm being honest when I say that I put it on the GAN qeue to find someone to help me improve it, not to have it passed again without a very deep review. Even after the copyedit, I still feel it needs work, and I have a strange feeling inside of me that dettached me from the article. It's like the magic died. Maybe is because of the GAR (I withdrew all my DYK noms because of it). I apologize if you felt I was underestimating all the effort you took telling me how bad my article was, I didn't mean it... — ΛΧΣ2100:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
(←) A problem with GAN, I think, is that it only takes one reviewer to approve an article; there's no second opinion or oversight. I looked at the original GA nomination (which was only a few days ago!), and the article seemed to have been given the green light too quickly. This isn't the first...um, less-than-GA I've seen as a copy editor, and these rush jobs lead to unpleasant situations like this. Miniapolis04:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, featured pictures represent the best pictures on Wikipedia, regardless who took them. They are graphical depictions holding a very high encyclopedic value, great visual quality, etc. Although you can be able to take a picture of such standard, there is no need for the picture to be yours. If you happen to find a very good picture, you can take it to FPC and see if its good enough to become a featured asset of the 'pedia. — ΛΧΣ2121:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
No. Permission is not needed. Of course, if you see that the uploader of the image is a constant FPC nominator, it'll be sure he'd nominate it too. Also, if you take the pic to FPC and it is promoted, the credit goes to you and to the one who uploaded it too :) — ΛΧΣ2121:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. Most "featured" assessment processes are very calmed and drama-free if you avoid talk pages. I've had a very pleasant experience at FAC, FLC and now FPC. The good articles process is very straight-forward and drama-free too. As of late, FAC has been the one with more drama, but as I said, if the talk pages you avoid, have issues you would not (a la Master Yoda). Happy editing Strikeout. It's very nice to see you again :) — ΛΧΣ2122:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Wow. I was aware of that convo, but didn't read it until now. Why the hell Colin was acting like that? I mean, I value the contributions of Davenbelle and Merridew, although I do not approve their sockpuppetry by any means. I think we shouldn't judge the content taking into consideration who wrote it (or in this case, uploaded it). Anyone can end up being randomly sockpuppeting (and I saw that proven today by a user I didn't believe could've done that), but that doesn't mean that we have to delist all their FAs, delete all their images and their files, delete their pages and assume they never existed. — ΛΧΣ2122:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, I feel understood ;) - The discussion was closed before I could add how it feels when you lost a brother to be told that he was poor company and you should be ashamed. The stunning pic is seen every day by many in the world, so I won't push further. - While you typed this I remembered a good conversation with Mat and left a note under your barnstar. - Just got a new GA, matching GA, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I saw your message there :) I still have (and will ever do, to be honest) a good vision of what Mat was for the pedia. I know she made a bit of a mess on FAC; I also know that some people overreact and maximize things were they shouldn't. It's like some kind of obsession with them that they cannot stop talking about them and mentioning how they made a mess before being thankfully blocked/banned. Maybe it's because I always take a more calmed and thoughtful approach to thinks, and I always give everything the weigh it deserves, that my views about several things differ from that of the community (or specific members of the community who end up being confused with the real community as a whole). I think I'm graced for being free from dramas. The last time I got involved in one, I almost retired. So I prefer just to write good content and stay away from harmful environments. — ΛΧΣ2122:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
To be able to receive points, you have to do substantial work on the picture. If you found it on the internet, you can't get points. But if you found it on the internet, edited it a lot or found it on wiki and edited it a lot to meet the FP standard, then you can claim points. If you took the picture yourself you can claim points too. For example, I am not the uploader of this file: Enterprise_lifted.jpg, but I have done substantial work on it to improve the contrast, lightning and colour. So, if it reaches FP status, I can claim points for the cup. — ΛΧΣ2101:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Not yet :) Maybe later after some of the noms I have at FPC (which, sadly, can be counted for points) are closed. Well, if you see that a good picture (in quality and size) needs some retouches to meet the criteria, you download the original file to your computer, make a copy (this is a recommendation of mine), open the image on ImageReady or Photoshop (Picasa works too for images below 50MB, I guess) and do the changes. Of course, you have to have a level of knowledge in photography to be able to make the proper improvements to the picture. — ΛΧΣ2101:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Don't worry about the points. By making good content and forgetting about the points, you will easily get them without ending schizophrenic. I have only reviewed like 6 GANs and written 3 GAs and I'm second on the cup (I was first for several days), so you don't have to worry too much: it is supposed to be fun :) — ΛΧΣ2101:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, okay. I don't expect to contend for the championship or even to get especially close, but I don't want to get shut out. I do have an FAC going, so that would definitely help. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
No one wants :) I am not sure if I will be able to contend for it although I make a lot of content which ends up being good or featured. I think that you can start making GA reviews. That helps a lot. After that, you can start writing well-referenced articles to take to DYK (or expand short articles fivefold, which also works). And there it goes... :) — ΛΧΣ2102:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yeahm I know. You have always been a vandal fighter no? I see that you like to work on Baseball topics (as well as being an active member of the TAFI process) and do mostly maintenance work. I guess that you should start with DYK if you want to familiarize with content writing (although, as a funny note, I somewhat started with FLC) before jumping to higher grounds. You told me above that you had an FAC ongoing; which is it? :) — ΛΧΣ2102:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Wow, amazing. As it was nominated this year, if it passes, you'd have 100 points :D. I've completely abandoned vandal fighting since Catfish retired; most of my maintenance work lies in the File namespace now... And no :( Reviewing a DYK does not count for points; neither a good article reasessment. — ΛΧΣ2102:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
It seems to be a very solid candidate. I will give you a review of it; maybe tomorrow (bookmarking now). I read the lead and first two sections and it is interesting and catchy, which is good. Let's see how it turns out :) — ΛΧΣ2102:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I do have some questions about how scoring is handled in the WikiCup, but Lord willing, those can wait for another time (you're probably tired of my blather). AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oh please! You can ask me as much questions as you wish, and i will be glad to answer them if I know the answer. I'm not tired of talking to you :) — ΛΧΣ2102:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Wow, that was a hard one. From what I can see, the count is restarted each time a round begins. So, if you got 500 points during the first round, you will start from zero on the next one. At the end, all your points are sumed up Not, they are not sumed up (I guess, I'd ask J Milburn about this) and the one who got the higher number of points, wins. — ΛΧΣ2103:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yeah. I was quite confused because a user making 2242 points on a single round is crazy. And good :) An advice: Pick a short one. Short ones are a good start. Maybe an article by Hurricanehink, Sasata or Arsenikk will show you what is expected from a good article candidate. — ΛΧΣ2103:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oh well, that may be the case. About your review, it looks very good and detailed. Although, I am worried by the article you just picked up. TonyTheTiger sometimes nominates articles which are not even close to the criteria and I have had rough times with his noms in the past because of that... — ΛΧΣ2104:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, the best think you can do to check if the article is complete is to do a search on google to see if any key information is missing on the article. I personally consider that the personal life section is a bit short. it may be missing something. — ΛΧΣ2104:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hmm okay. Well, about the info and sections, that's your call. Maybe you can write that as a general comment or as a recommendation on the review page and discuss it with Tony :) — ΛΧΣ2104:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I still don't know. I was thinking about running in March, when I reach one year of continued editing. I should also get rid of the weird NAC restriction I have.... Although it seems like it doesn't matter. But I don't know. Maybe I end up not running again :) What about you? Still up to letting me nom you in April? — ΛΧΣ2104:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I wouldn't suggest that you try running until after you get that restriction lifted, it would probably be enough to bring down the RfA all by itself. As for me, I'm not really sure. Dennis Brown, Go Phightins! and Yash! are, if I remember correctly, all also interested in nominating, so that's four right there. I'm just not sure when I want to run. April would be the soonest, but it could be later, maybe even never. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
We are in the same position then. Why don't we just run together when we feel ready? We both have our noms awaiting (I have Yash! and other two) so we just need to give them the green light to throw ourselves to the wolves :) — ΛΧΣ2104:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
You have the same noms as me or is it Yash! and two others? I'm not clear on that. Regardless, that's an intriguing suggestion, it will depend on if we are both ready at the same time. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Lol. I have Yash! and two other editors (not the same as yours). Well, It'll be fun :) I am not thrilled by adminship, to be honest. Most things I wanna do I am able to with the rights I hold right now. I am exploring new horizons as of late. Recently, I was promoted to coordinating Mediator on es-wiki (somewhat like the leading member of the Spanish Wikipedia Mediation Commitee) and became an Image reviewer at Commons. I am very interested in licensing and dispute resolution as well as cross-wiki work and image copyvio at Commons :) — ΛΧΣ2104:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
No I haven't. You have reverted several different users over time. If you revert again, you will be blocked for edit warring, violation of the WP:3RR rule and WP:OWNing the article. Consider this your final warning. — ΛΧΣ2107:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
dude DDDDDDDDDUUUUUUUUUUUDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEEEEE, you have engaged in an edit war - i am "THE" editor for the year in United States article - as for you i have never heard of you before seeeing as how i have never seen you make one single good edit previously to any article there - you come there and start a war over format that has been there for years and suddenly call be a warrior when you are the sudden vandal - then you make threats that i will get blocked because i bother to stop your vandalism -I HAVE JUST ONE SIMPLE QUESTION TO ASK YOU - ARE YOU SUDDENLY PLANNING TO TAKE OVER THE GOOD SHEPARDING OF THE "YEAR IN THE UNITED STATES" ARTICLES (I AM GUESSING YOU WILL HAVE TO PUT IN 10 HOURS A WEEK OF YOUR TIME TO DO THE ARTICLE JUSTICE)? - if not you need to stop warring me there--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I have officially reported you for owning those articles, breaching the three-revert rule and edit warring. Have a nice editing and no, I am not "the sudden vandal"; I am a longstanding established contributor. Regards. — ΛΧΣ2108:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
You archive fast! Loosely connected to our last talk: did you see TFP today? I admire her work! - Enjoy the treats, - I then missed the detail that the one to be banned fixed the closing of the appeal ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Wow. Amazing picture indeed; I didn't know about her existence (or did I? Can't remember). And that was a very interesting read. I have found that the miraclous place I thought Wikipedia to be was only the newbie illusion we all see when we start editing: only to later discover that it was sand disguised as water. Then, we blow our mouths full of distasteful sand, breathing fast, and trying not to recognize that several years of editing later, we are all still thirsty to find the Oasis we were promised at first. — ΛΧΣ2117:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Wow; she still edits on Commons, just like Fae and (I won't say the name). Those are amazing pictures indeed. I just checked Mbz1's talk (or how it was on February 2012) and, well, I won't say anything about it :| — ΛΧΣ2121:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I am listed there as a member; you know, for those who feel hurt each time a user leaves :) Although I think that something bigger should be done: We cannot defeat a virus by hiding people from it, but by developing a cure. — ΛΧΣ2122:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes :) Although, a dilemma has been flooding my mind recently: How could I be able to make other editors stay if I have considered retirement twice in a week? I still don't know the answer, but I am feeling (again) greatly discouraged by how some things are managed on the English Wikipedia. I have not been affected by it, but other users have, and it manages to touch me from afar. It just costs me to push the edit button as of late, and I hope I regain the force and determination I once had back in September 2011 when I pushed that button for the first time in three years, and kept pushing it two thousand times per month ever since. — ΛΧΣ2101:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I didn't verify if it was a copyvio. My mistake. I see that you have done a thorough review of it; good. Just remember to be nice with Diva; I'm afraid he may not completely understand what copyvio means. — ΛΧΣ2118:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hahc21, can I ask you to please recheck Template:Did you know nominations/Papi Te Quiero as soon as you can? It's been in my eye to promote, but with the recent discussion on Diva's articles, I wouldn't feel comfortable doing so until it's been checked again for the translation and other close paraphrasing/quoting issues. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
BlueMoonSet, Hahc21 indicated on my talk, and on Diva's talk, that he's not at home now, but will be in about six hours. Glad that he's stepping up to help on this one! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there are currently discussions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard which require the attention of a volunteer. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. Below this message is the DR/N status update.
You are recieving this notification to request assistance at the DR/N where you are listed as a volunteer. The number of cases has either become too large and/or there are many cases shaded with an alert status. Those shaded pink are marked as: "This request requires a volunteer's attention". Those shaded blue have had a volunteers attention recently
Sorry but I am the leading Mediator of two BIG cases on the Spanish Wikipedia and have no time to attend any DRN case by now. Also, I am having some personal issues, as well as my professional studies, so I am not able to take some of my time to dedicate to resolve disputes. I would really like to help, but I'm just not willing to, and can't do it. Regards. — ΛΧΣ2101:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
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!
.jpg)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Kiske_performing_at_rockwave_festival.jpg&action=history%7Cthis){kind=link}
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AExtra%2BVirginity.jpg&action=history%7Cthis){kind=link}
