User talk:Smartyllama/Archive 4

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not working today here, or at my other job, so the sun won't sink into the west here in rainy Florida before we have a resolution. We'll see how the discussion at WT:CSD goes in the mean time.Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You participated in a discussion about merging the Not My Presidents Day article. I was wondering if you'd be interested in sharing your thoughts on the proposed merge of Impeachment March into the Efforts to impeach Donald Trump article? If you're not interested, no problem. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best man (or woman) win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, it was created as a redirect about a month ago. It was tagged for speedy deletion but declined. What happened after that was really bizarre (well before as well, truth be told), and it ended up getting speedy deleted anyway, by someone who could not have possibly looked at the edit history.18abruce (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't prove all the details now, and I should have maybe stayed out of it from the beginning but.... in the beginning the creator removed the speedy tag, I reverted, and pasted him a link that showed that the rules state that you cannot remove a speedy tag from your own creations. Not the first time this has happened with the editor in question. Again, I was neutral on the whole thing, so I should have stayed out of it. Anyway he went a little nuts over it, calling me names and asking me to be blocked (you can look in the history of my talk page if you want, we have some history). Then it was declined as I said. However on September 22nd or 23rd the creator himself nominated it for speedy deletion with the exact same criteria, then reverted himself, then reverted the page back to the original speedy tag. I considered removing the speedy tag because it had already been declined but decided to stay clear of someone who was acting as rational as a bag full of squirrels. I figured someone would see the edit history and take care of it but on the 24th user RHaworth deleted the page under criteria G4.18abruce (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catalonia has seceded from Spain. So the team representing is Catalonia from now on. Please support Catalonian independence.

• My political views are irrelevant. FIFA recognizes it as the Spanish team, so it's the Spanish team. Even if they did recognize a separate Catalonian team, which they don't, the original Spanish team would still exist. Stop with your vandalism. Smartyllama (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay you son/daughter of a Castillian bitch. We will show you when Catalonia wins the world cup. You Spanish pigs cant even qualify for World cup from next time. Long live Catalonia. Long live Basque Country. Death to Espanyol.

Re: "The sources to prove notability exist. As long as that's the case, it doesn't matter whether they're actually in the article, contrary to SMcCandlish's assertion." Except that articles that see no improvement are fairly apt to get deleted at a later AfD. If interest in keeping flags, the deletionists may win the day eventually, because AfDers often do not look closely at previous nominations.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Adityavagarwal (submissions)
• Second Place - Vanamonde (submissions)
• Third Place - Cas Liber (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
• Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
• Featured List – Bloom6132 (submissions) and 1989 (submissions) both produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – SounderBruce (submissions) improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
• Featured Topic – MPJ-DK (submissions) has the only FT of the Cup in R3.
• Good Topic – Four different editors created a GT in R2, R3 and R4.
• Did You Know – Adityavagarwal had 22 DYKs on the main page in R5.
• In The News – MBlaze Lightning (submissions) had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
• Good Article Review – Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (submissions) completed 31 GARs in R1.

Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.

Regarding the prize vouchers - @Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2017 America East Men's Soccer Tournament. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Quidster4040 (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Smartyllama. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Based on your edits to NationStates, I thought maybe you would be interested that I started a series of userboxes for the game. Feel free to add any or add your own!-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 06:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article J. Millard Tawes Gymnasium has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Justice High School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

per WP:CRYSTAL. this school doesn't exist under this name; and it does exist under another name. The parts of this article which are encyclopedic should be merged to J. E. B. Stuart High School. Most of it isn't encyclopedic. The Stuart article should then be moved to this title in September of 2019, or whenever the name change actually takes effect.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. John from Idegon (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Smartyllama (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. I am on the free Wi-Fi on Amtrak, the IP data should accurately reflect that. It's a public IP, but not a proxy or anything like that. Smartyllama (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. You forgot to tell us your IP address so we can't investigate your claim. You can find this using WhatIsMyIP. If you don't wish to provide this publicly, you may use WP:UTRS. Yamla (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

except that the ISU says that Japan is participating in pairs, are they wrong? Seriously? Japan has already been notified officially that they are participating but we are removing them from the table.18abruce (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• saw the revert, did not notice that you also included Japan. Well, I am sorry, and thank you.18abruce (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @18abruce: I'd assume Japan is still participating and we'll just have an extra pair, but I couldn't find a reliable source confirming that. I think it's best to leave it as is until we know for sure. Smartyllama (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makes two extra pairs possibly; they contradict themselves on whether South Korea is participating in the pairs as a host entry, or just receiving an additional quota in pairs only for the the team event. I believe it will be a situation like the Australian women bobsled in 2010 where there is special dispensation for an additional entry (that one was because the IBSF screwed up and informed someone else they were already qualified when it should have been the Aussies, so both participated). We will see.18abruce (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]