User talk:David Fuchs/Archive 46

This is an archive of past discussions with User:David Fuchs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello David Fuchs,

I've left the message below the DS Review page [1], and hope you and all the other arbitrators will take a look and leave a note indicating that you've looked at the discussion of the important issues with DS, with indefinite bans, and with the phrase 'broadly construed' which have been raised throughout that page. NinaGreen (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Two arbitrators, AGK and Roger Davies, have added occasional comments to this page concerning the significant changes which have been suggested here, all of which are quick, easy and effective fixes which would (1) drastically reduce arbitrator and administrator workload; (2) permit the reduction in the incredibly high number of administrators (1400), as a result of (1), and allow for the elimination, almost entirely, of WP:AE; (3) improve Wikipedia's public image; (4) improve the general atmosphere on Wikipedia, making it more collegial and far less adversarial; (5) significantly improve editor retention. However are the other 13 arbitrators at all aware of these suggestions? The lack of any comments from them in this review suggests they may not be. Could the other arbitrators just drop a note here to indicate that they are aware of the suggestions? Obviously change can never take place if the people who can effect if aren't aware of the problems which have been identified in this discussion and the suggestions which have been made for fixing them.

Hello there!

Our February WikiSalon is coming up on Sunday, February 23. Join us at our gathering of Wikipedia enthusiasts at the Kogod Courtyard of the National Portrait Gallery with an optional dinner after. As usual, all are welcome. Care to join us?

Also, if you are available, there is an American Art Edit-a-thon being held at the Smithsonian American Art Museum with Professor Andrew Lih's COMM-535 class at American University on Tuesday, February 11 from 2 to 5 PM. Please RSVP on the linked page if you are interested.

If you have any ideas or preferences for meetups, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/DC.

Thank you, and hope to see you at our upcoming events! Harej (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I've placed the comment below on Roger Davies' Talk page under the heading 'Correction to collapsed discussion' and am copying it here because the point is obviously one of vital concern to all arbitrators. NinaGreen (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Roger,

Could you please correct this comment you made at [2]:

This is your fourth edit since you were asked to back off yesterday. Whatever benefit there might have been in your contributions has been lost in the - to put it mildly - freeranging nature and inquisitorial tone of your comments. You have singlehandedly provided about half the commentary over the last month, sometimes derailing discussions, stopping others in their tracks, and contributing greatly to bloat. Please now step right back.

Your statement is inaccurate. I made only a single comment after I was told my comments were unwelcome by AGK yesterday, and that comment was made in reply to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Can another editor no longer ask me a question, and receive a reply? The four 'edits' were merely 'fixes' to that single comment, as is obvious from the edit history. Please correct that inaccuracy by removing your statement which implies that I made four separate comments after being told my comments were unwelcome, and which fails to recognize the fact that I was replying to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Your statements that I have 'derailed discussions' or 'stopped others in their tracks' are also both inaccurate. I have never done that, nor have you provided an example of either. I have merely raised questions, and in almost every single case an administrator, either you, AGK, or Salvio has abruptly shut down any discussion of the questions I have raised. The questions I've raised are valid ones. Perhaps they seem 'inquisitorial' to you and to other administrators because you are committed to discretionary sanctions and you cannot look at them from the point of view of the vast majority of Wikipedia editors who find DS strange, unjust, and harmful to the project.

Also your own comments which you later added to that section directly contradict the information provided to me by Robert McClenon, so why has Salvio been permitted to collapse the discussion with the comment 'Asked and answered' when the question obviously hasn't been answered? You state unequivocally earlier in the discussion that I was the only one ('one notable exception') who didn't understand the difference between the powers exercised by administrators in DS and in non-DS situations, and Salvio rudely told me that my question had been answered before, and that I was exhibiting 'supine ignorance'. The discussion now shows I was clearly not the only one who didn't understand the difference, since your later comment completely contradicts the explanation of the difference given by Robert McClenon. It is not healthy for Wikipedia when even an experienced editor like Robert McClenon obviously doesn't understand the difference between the powers, and when you have to tell Robert that his explanation is completely wrong, and when no Wikipedia editor can find anywhere on Wikipedia a clear difference and distinction between the powers. The only way to fix this is to set out on the DS project page a clear explanation of the difference between the powers of arbitrators, the powers of administrators in DS situations, and the power of administrators in non-DS situations. At present the differences are completely blurred, and no Wikipedia editor has access to a clear statement of what an administrator is actually authorized to do in DS situations as opposed to non-DS situations, or how the powers of administrators differ from those of arbitrators. Robert McClenon stated that administrators in DS-sitations have been given 'arbitrator-like powers'. By what authority has this happened, since administrators were not elected to be arbitrators? This blurring of powers, the refusal to clearly set out for the benefit of all Wikipedia editors the differences between the powers exercised by arbitrators, administrators in DS situations and administrators in non-DS situations, and the handing over of arbitrators' powers to administrators who were never elected to exercise such powers is not healthy for Wikipedia, nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you, AGK and Salvio to shut down discussion of such a vital point. Nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you to shut it down on the basis of an inaccurate statement about my comments (see above).

Hey Fuchs, would you have time to have a look at my peer review or A-Class review for GTA V? I liked the feedback you gave on Skyrim so I thought you'd be a good help. CR4ZE (t) 11:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@CR4ZE: I'll try and take a look; my usual caveat about badgering me if I haven't gotten to it in a few days, and that it will likely take me a while, apply. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

. CR4ZE (t) 03:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:

• This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
• Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
• The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
• An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.

Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.

More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.

I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!

--Dom497

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, David. I wonder whether you would be willing to have a look at an SPI that has been waiting for a CheckUser for nearly three weeks. I am close to closing it as a duck case, but for several reasons I would prefer to have a CheckUser opinion if possible. The case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the work on Scholarscentral. But did you get a chance to check on Srinubabuau6 (talk · contribs)? See here for the rationale. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for dealing with this. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

— Harej (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

If you or someone could make a comprehensible summary of sections 1.1 through 1.4, that could be used to create a second article titled Sovereignty of Puerto Rico during the Cold War. That would split the current revision into two separate articles, only leaving the current political line under the original title. However, do not confuse my willingness to cooperate based on your personal perception with satisfaction, because tagging and criticizing an article that is: 1- New and hence unpolished, and 2- The work of months of formal research and writing -and just floating away- was incredibly rude.

BTW, it may "ramble", but in its original incarnation it was barely 1k bytes. I have seen several biographies that go well over 100k (and that is without counting their sub-articles), and a single biography is rarely as complex as writing a concise summary of a multisectoral and diffuse political movement. Hell, just take a look at the merger proposal of a 11k article into the already bloated 150k Grand Theft Auto V and tell me that my political article is "too long". Seriously, how "academic" and complex can a video game be to deserve such a huge article? That article is truly ridiculous and should be tagged for having an inordinate length when weighted against the notability of its subject. El Alternativo (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@El Alternativo: There is nothing "incredibly rude" about tagging an article, especially if it's a problem that cannot be ameliorated by any simple tweaks. I have thus restored the tag. Setting up false equivalencies and combative language is what strikes me as less helpful than opening a dialogue on the tagging. (If you want to tag Grand Theft Auto for length, no one is stopping you—I have had no involvement with it, and even if I did that's not any reason to argue against suggestions for improvement.)

As for "rambling", I read the entire article and still came away confused—there are people dropped into the article with no introduction, blow-by-blow accounts of elections a general presumption readers know Puerto Rican politics. That's not useful for a general purpose encyclopedia and if you want people to actually *read* the article instead of clicking away bored or frustrated, that's a serious issue.

I would say comparing the Free association movement to a video game as to merits is a singularly folly task. To play the "opposition" as to why GTA merits a longer article—it is the fastest-grossing entertainment property in human history, and players quadruple the population of Puerto Rico. More people probably care or know about GTA worldwide than care or know about Puerto Rico—so you see where this game of "My topic is more important" is not conducive to actually improving articles.

When I have time to go through the article again I will be happy to post a more in-depth list of issues on the article talk page. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Most people are simple minded and shallow, so its likely that more "care" about GTA, but that does not change the fact that it is an academically irrelevant topic. Like all fads, their relevancy is tied to the attention span of people, bring a superior product and it is suddenly replaced. You must have seen the critics that appear every time that one of these games is featured in the main page, so I'm not exactly in the minority. Back to the matter at hand, I gave you an alternative to change the article and cut its length in half, if you can't do it then you should at least help to bring someone capable of doing it since you seem so bent on keeping the tag. Condensing the first sections into a summary should deal with at least that concern. I don't have any problems with applying other changes, as long as the reviews don't involve quips. El Alternativo (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is now 160k, if you can condense the content that was moved to Sovereignty of Puerto Rico during the Cold War into a summary of 10k or less, length should not be an issue. El Alternativo (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Since the article is now about a third shorter, the format has been changed and you haven't said or done anything in a while, I will remove the tag within a day. Any other issues that you have with it, post them on the talk page. El Alternativo (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Can't click "thank you" anywhere here, so thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)

The motion reads as follows:

• By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I left a reply to your comment, in my section at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Cirt_and_Jayen466.

Thanks very much for your attention to this matter,

— Cirt (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 01:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I've lowered the block on 71.202.123.2 to 72 hours, as that's a dynamic IP which really shouldn't be blocked indefinitely. Legoktm (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Got your name form checkusers list, I suspect following users to be involved in sockpuppetry and subsets of the following may be from same IP ,some of them are heavily involved in edit warring and disputes over fully protected article Dawoodi Bohra and other Bohra articles and giving other admins a hard time. One of the user Araz5152 created a hoax article [Qutbi bohra] which had to be completely transformed by another reliable author. So do let me know about the investigation

Mufaddalqn SamanthaPuckettIndo

Markdrows Md iet Murtazajamali DistributorScientiae Araz5152 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 09:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 7, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2014
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2014, the project has:

169 Featured Articles 63 Featured Lists 8 Featured Topics 10 Featured Pictures

42 A-Class Articles 665 Good Articles 8 Good Topics

---

Content

Changes to Featured and Good content News items and announcements

Feature:WikiProject Video Games in retrospect Report:Featured and Good articles by genre Interview: Red Phoenix

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

I was recently reading through a lot of old threads back when I was starting out and thinking about all the editors that I bumped into on the site, I realized that the ones that I had great interactions with disappeared over the years. So, all I want to say is, thanks. We don't interact as much but its good to know that you're still kicking it these days. GamerPro64 05:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, David. I've finally finished work on the Looking Glass Studios video games GTC, and I'll be nominating as soon as the last few articles pass GAN. For a few years, I've planned to ask you to make a mirror graphic to be the topic image when the time came. It would be a massive help. If you're too busy, could you recommend another Photoshop whiz for me to contact? Thanks a bunch. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A few. I envisioned it as a slightly ornate mirror, shown at a 45 degree angle like your Guilty Spark icon. Colors like the blues or grays you've used in a lot of your other images. The main thing was that I wanted it to be in your style, which I've always thought was slick and cool. So don't feel too constrained by those suggestions. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

And I should add that you agreeing to this is like a dream come true. Huge thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll work on some ideas and send them to you by the end of the week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I know you're super busy, but I was wondering if you've had any time to draft image ideas yet. There's no big hurry--just wondering. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I'll post something this evening. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 11:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@JimmyBlackwing: sorry for the delay. Here's some rough concepts. Let me know if there's anything you like in those sketches and I'll work from there. [3] Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem about the delay. And wow, this stuff already looks great. I love the bottom left one, but I think my favorite concept is the one on the bottom right—with the LGS text reflected in the angled looking glass. I can't wait to see where you take it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Tell ya' what, I'll develop both of them a little further and you can make the final decision. I'll try and get that done tonight or tomorrow. Harass me if I don't! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's one... [4] Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice! Can't wait to compare the two. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

And the other [5] Make your choice! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The second one just blows my mind. So good. It's like a significantly better version of the image I've visualized for the last few years. I can't wait to use it as the topic image. Thanks a million. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

K. You can grab and upload that one if you want (it's a PNG) or you can wait for me to get home tonight and upload it to the Commons. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It's your work, and I don't have a clue how to upload to Commons, so I'll let you handle it. Thanks again. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Yar. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LGS_topic_icon.png Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. I don't plan on leaving Wikipedia entirely, though. User:Mitaphane is getting rid of his Next Generation and EGM collection, and, as it stands now, it looks like I'll be picking them up and taking his place at WP:VG/RL. So, I'll still be around to help anyone who needs a scan from those magazines. But I doubt I'll return to article writing unless one of the LGS articles gets sent to FAR or GAR. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you assist please on editing this page? Many users who have said the same thing ad naseum with an interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronn_Torossian and this related page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:5W_Public_Relations Richielapiock (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 20:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 20:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Right here we have a discussion about what's appropriate to list as a media adaptation of Journey to the West. The page states that obscure references to the story, or else the featuring of one character doesn't count, but another editor disagrees. What are your thoughts on this? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 18:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Ping, as requested czar ♔ 23:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi David, as you shared your thoughts in the recent Peer Review, I thought you might like to know that I have opened a new FAC for Proteus (video game). It would be great to hear your opinion on the article again. I added the changes you suggested in the PR, apart from the source archiving; it's quite a time consuming task that I don't really have time for at the moment and as far as I'm aware it shouldn't be a deciding factor for FAC. Sam Walton (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. As you have previously been involved with the milestones for the Dota 2 article by giving input, I figured it would be courteous to notify you that said article is up for Featured Article status. I am welcoming you to give your input! DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 18:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Greetings!

Wikimedia DC has yet another busy month in June. Whether you're a newcomer to Wikipedia or have years of experience, we're happy to see you come. Here's what's coming up:

• On Wednesday, June 11 from 7 to 9 PM come to the WikiSalon at the Cove co-working space. Hang out with Wikipedia enthusiasts!
• Saturday, June 14 is the Frederick County History Edit-a-Thon from 11 AM to 4 PM. Help improve local history on Wikipedia.
• The following Saturday, June 21, is the June Meetup. Dinner and drinks with Wikipedians!
• Come on Tuesday, June 24 for the Wikipedia in Your Library edit-a-thon at GWU on local and LGBT history.
• Last but not least, on Sunday, June 29 we have the Phillips Collection Edit-a-Thon in honor of the Made in America exhibit.

Wikipedia is better with friends, so why not come out to an event?

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 01:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 5, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 5, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is a 1982 American science fiction film. The genetically engineered tyrant Khan Noonien Singh (Ricardo Montalbán), a character from the 1967 Star Trek television series episode "Space Seed", escapes from exile to exact revenge on Admiral James T. Kirk (William Shatner). The crew of the USS Enterprise must stop Khan from acquiring a powerful terraforming device named Genesis. The film concludes with the death of Spock (Leonard Nimoy), beginning a story arc continued in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. After the poor response to Star Trek: The Motion Picture, series creator Gene Roddenberry was forced out of the sequel's production. Nimoy only reprised his role as Spock because the character's death was intended to be irrevocable. Negative test audience reaction to Spock's death led to significant revisions of the ending over the objections of the director, Nicholas Meyer (pictured in 2008). The Wrath of Khan was a box office success, and critical reaction was generally positive. It is generally considered to be the best film of the entire Star Trek series and is credited with renewing interest in the franchise. (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I am pleased to announce our fourth annual picnic, the Great American Wiknic, will take place at Meridian Hill Park in Washington, D.C. on Sunday, July 13 from 1 to 5 PM (rain date: July 20). We will be hanging out by the statue of Dante Alighieri, a statue that was donated to the park in 1921 as a tribute to Italian Americans. Read more about the statue on Wikipedia. If you would like to sign up for the picnic, you can do so here. When signing up, say what you’re going to bring!

July will also feature the second annual Great American Wiknic in Frederick, Maryland. This year’s Frederick picnic will take place on Sunday, July 6 at Baker Park. Sign up here for the Frederick picnic.

What else is going on in July? We have the American Chemical Society Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, July 12, dedicated to notable chemists, and our monthly WikiSalon on Wednesday, July 16.

We hope to see you at our upcoming events!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 7, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2014
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2014, the project has:

175 Featured Articles 63 Featured Lists 9 Featured Topics 16 Featured Pictures

42 A-Class Articles 696 Good Articles 9 Good Topics

---

Content

Changes to Featured and Good content News items and announcements

No feature this quarter Interview: CR4ZE

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: I am also sending this message to Worm

Hello Worm and David! I hope this message finds you at a good time. I was searching through the arbcom list of active arbitrators and found that only three of you remain active from the Argentine History case (how incredible that a year has already passed?). I wanted to thank you both for having believed in me (even if one of you, ehem...David...ehem, was a bit harsh by mentioning a certain rope). I have indeed fulfilled my promise to bring the article Falkland Islands to featured status, in order to demonstrate that the sanctions applied against me were far too harsh and misled by misinformation (or perhaps disinformation). During this past year I have also led two articles to featured status, the Peru national football team and Pisco Sour.

Before appealing the sanction, I would first like to continue demonstrating my quality as a serious editor by taking the article of the United States to featured status (my current sandbox plan is here, including planned pictures and a new introduction). However, since part of US history overlaps with the history of Latin America, my question to you both is if me working on this tangential topic within the US article would would be an issue? Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 18:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Marshal. At first blush I'd say that US history, especially in the general view of a main topic, is tangental enough from Latin American history it's no issue, but I would encourage you to file a Request for clarification just to make sure my fellow arbs agree and there are no concerns. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm writing a third paragraph for this that can be viewed here [6]. I'd like your input on it. Its source is next to it. « Ryūkotsusei » 23:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Please help me out from user Redtigerxyz's edit war.Each and every single edits of mine interrupted by him.long before he did the same. again he started.Really this is painful for me.He might be join with some other editor then my move is so pitty.before he did the same so said.if you see the history of mine and him then you come to know.please help me in this.thank youEshwar.om^{Talk tome} 20:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings!

Sorry for the last minute update, but our friends at the DC Historical Society have scheduled a Battle of Fort Stevens Edit-a-Thon to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Civil War battle fought in the District. The event will last from noon to 2 PM on Wednesday, July 30. Hope you can make it!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Just curious, if the whales in Star Trek IV were named Laurel and Hardy, would you still require a citation to say that they were named after Laurel and Hardy? —howcheng {chat} 04:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Howcheng:. Yes. See WP:V. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear David Fuchs, please see this polite request, and provide a positive thoughtful response there, if you have one. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC).

Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!

TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.

If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.

At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.

As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!

Sent by Dom497--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Dante transparent.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 09:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Come one and come all. To a presentation at the Laurel Historical Society about how you can help verify, validate, and edit the information that is on the front line of local history.

• Show the Internet who is the better editor.
• Be the creator of culture that you know you are.
• Spread the knowledge of noteworthy people who no one but you cares about.
• Lead the charge to a better Wikipedia --- eventually.

Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

See you at the Laurel Pool Room, 9th and Main Street, Laurel, MD on Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 7:00 PM EST. See http://www.meetup.com/Wikimedia-DC/events/205494212/ for more information. Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The WikiSalon is a special meetup usually held during the first and third full weeks of every month, from 7 PM to 9 PM. It's an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss Wikimedia wikis and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own.

If you're coming by Metro, the closest station is Dupont Circle (on the Red Line). If you're driving, a lot of parking opens up downtown after 6:30 PM, so finding a parking space (even a free one) should be easy. Once you've found the building, go to Cove on the second floor. We will be in the conference room.

When: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 at 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM

Where: The Cove, Dupont Circle, 1730 Connecticut Avenue NW, 2nd floor, 20009, DC

For more information, see http://www.meetup.com/Wikimedia-DC/events/205500822/

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC's Upcoming meetups

• Thursday, September 11: “Wikipedia and YOUR History: Taking Control of the Internet, One Article at a Time!”

  A presentation at the Laurel Historical Society about how you can help verify, validate, and edit the information that is on the front line of local history. Laurel Pool Room, 9th and Main Street in Laurel, MD. 7 PM.

• Wednesday, September 17: WikiSalon

  Come for the pizza, stay for the conversation. 7 PM – 9 PM

• Saturday, September 20: September Meetup

  Get dinner and drinks with fellow Wikipedians! 6 PM

• Sunday, September 21: Laurel History Edit-a-Thon

  Local history for Wikipedia! 10:15 AM – 4 PM

• Saturday, September 27 – Sunday, September 28: Please RSVP for the Open Government WikiHack at Eventbrite by clicking on the link. The National Archives and Records Administration and Wikimedia DC are teaming up to come up with solutions that help integrate government data into Wikipedia. 10:30 AM – 5 PM each day

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup WikiProject Good articles is holding a new competition, the GA Cup, from October 1, 2014 - March 28, 2015. The Cup will be based on reviewing Good article nominations; for each review, points will be awarded with bonuses for older nominations, longer articles and comprehensive reviews. All participants will start off in one group and the highest scoring participants will go through to the second round. At the moment six rounds are planned, but this may change based on participant numbers. Some of you may ask: what is the purpose for a competition of this type? Currently, there is a backlog of about 500 unreviewed Good article nominations, almost an all time high. It is our hope that we can decrease the backlog in a fun way, through friendly competition. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors! Sign-ups will be open until October 15, 2014 so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the four judges. Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC) To receive future GA Cup newsletter, please add your name to our mailing list.

The second AFD for Belle Knox has been overturned and relisted. As you commented on the original AFD, you may wish to comment on this one as well. As there have been developments and sources created since the time of the original AFD, please review to see if your comments/!vote are the same or may have changed. Gaijin42 (talk)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 7, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2014
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2014, the project has:

185 Featured Articles 66 Featured Lists 10 Featured Topics 17 Featured Pictures

42 A-Class Articles 727 Good Articles 12 Good Topics

---

Content

Changes to Featured and Good content News items and announcements

Feature: Sourcing video game articles Interview: Guyinblack25

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, fellow Wikipedian!

I am excited to announce our upcoming Annual Meeting at the National Archives! We'll have free lunch, an introduction by Archivist of the United States David Ferriero, and a discussion featuring Ed Summers, the creator of CongressEdits. Join your fellow DC-area Wikipedians on Saturday, October 18 from 12 to 4:30 PM. RSVP today!

Also coming up we have the Human Origins edit-a-thon on October 17 and the WikiSalon on October 22. Hope to see you at our upcoming events!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi David, i messaged Courcelles on this but I don't think he's that active, I've mentioned this article El Clasico being an issue before (Barcelona fans and Madrid fans constantly arguing back and forth). I've tried to weigh in as a neutral (Liverpool fan in the UK.,,hardly ever edit on Liverpool for this reason) and there is an issue with a Madrid fan (Cid Campeador3) censoring material. Ok here are the two versions.

Me, a neutral observer from the UK, support neither team so my only aim is accuracy and to maintain neutrality. Ive adhered to WP:RS and used reliable sources, adhered to WP:NPOV by having the back story (General Franco wasn't pro one side or the other) to maintain balance...and gave a background of the build up to the game and the game itself;. The English sources (ie.The Guardian, The Independent etc). have no allegiances/bias and call a spade a spade.

Real Madrid 11 - 1 Barcelona

In 1943, Barcelona faced Real Madrid in the semi-finals of the 1943 Copa del Generalísimo. That was the General’s Cup, before Spain was made a republic, now called Copa del Rey. The first leg match, played at Barcelona's Les Corts stadium in Catalonia, ended with Barcelona winning 3–0.^[1] The Catalans had supported Barcelona so vociferously that they were vilified by the Madrid-based newspaper Ya which argued that they had "whistled at the Madrid players with the clear intention of attacking the representatives of Spain".^[2] General Franco wasn't obsessed with one side or the other, more with keeping down anyone with an independent thought in their head such as the Catalans, so his regime got to work.^[2] Before the second leg in Madrid, the Barcelona team received an uninvited guest just before kick-off.^[3] He carried an even more unwelcome message;

“Do not forget that some of you are only playing because of the generosity of the regime that has forgiven you for your lack of patriotism.” - Count of Mayalde, Franco's head of state security.^[2]

In one of the most intimidating atmospheres in football history, within half an hour Madrid were three goals ahead and Barcelona capitulated as they added to their tally to make it 8-0 before half-time with goals in the 33rd, 35th, 39th, 43rd and 49th minutes.^[2] At half-time Barcelona were reluctant to come out for the second half.^[1] Madrid dominated and scored three more, winning the game 11-1 (11-4 on aggregate).^[1] A newspaper called the scoreline "as absurd as it was abnormal".^[1]

According to football writer Sid Lowe; "There have been relatively few mentions of the game [since] and it is not a result that has been particularly celebrated in Madrid. Indeed, the 11-1 occupies a far more prominent place in Barcelona's history."^[1] Fernando Argila, Barcelona's reserve goalkeeper from the game, said: “There was no rivalry. Not, at least, until that game."^[1]

This material was then removed by Cid Campeador3, Madrid fan (from Madrid). He deleted reliable material from English references, deleted much of the sourced background of the game and the game itself (censoring), uses a Spanish source (diariogol) that we don't know the reliability of. Spanish sources tend to be biased (either pro one team or the other).

Real Madrid 11 - 1 Barcelona

In 1943, Barcelona faced Real Madrid in the semi-finals of the 1943 Copa del Generalísimo, competition nowadays called Copa del Rey. The first leg match, played at Barcelona's Les Corts stadium in Catalonia, ended with Barcelona winning 3–0.

At the second leg, in a strongly intimidating atmosphere, within the first half, Real Madrid had already scored eight goals. The final result was 11-1.

According to Josep Valle, Barcelona player during that season, Barcelona players were angry and infuriated because of the aggressiveness from the home crowd during the match, and also because of the violent style of playing they claimed Real Madrid was using.^[4]

In these circumstances, Barcelona coach Juan Jose Nogués and all his players decided that they were not going to play the second half.^[5] Then, the Superior Chief of Police of Madrid appeared, identified himself, and told Barcelona coach:

"You all have to go to the field, if you don't, we will take you all to the Police station."^[6]

Josep Valle claims Barcelona suffered that big defeat because of the pressure from the home crowd.^[7]

David you be the judge, or others on arbcom. Ive done my best to keep the article neutral and I personally believe if you have a strong alliance to one side you shouldn't edit as you have a natural bias. We all do. This is what I see in the Madrid fan's edit and censorship of reliable references. It's partly the reason I would have liked this page locked as therefore at least established editors can use it, and any discussion can take place on talk on any issues or changes required. Look at the edit hostory of the article, Ive edited biased material from both sides and I'm tired of trying to manitain the neutrality of the pags tbh. I'd like your input on this. Carlos Rojas77 23:25 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Carlos Rojas77: Hello Carlos. ArbCom is the last step in dispute resolution; as such I really don't want to give any thoughts on the matter specifically, other than suggesting that taking the sources involved to WP:RSN, or starting an WP:RFC on the topic would be good steps in trying to resolve the issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey heads up you voted both support and Oppose on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Proposed decision#Proposed remedies 1.1 - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Thanks for the heads-up. I got e/c'd twice and apparently messed things up the third go-'round. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome and yeah ec's can do some crazy stuff O.o . - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This is to inform you that Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 28 December 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 02:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

...appears to be inaccurate, as pointed out on the PD talkpage. See https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ec/?user=EatsShootsAndLeaves&project=en.wikipedia.org for details.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)