This is an archive of past discussions with User:Juliancolton. 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.
Hi Juliancolton ! I have started my second editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for Adminship. I see you also evaluate possible candidates for Adminship as you had chosen to do so on Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination, so do evaluate me too! As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I would like to know what I can do, so I can become an Administrator. Also I would like to know if you think I am ready. I would like to also to get suggestions from you so I can help my chances of getting the Adminship. Thanks, --Clarkcj12 (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey,
I don't edit much around here right now (might change at some point, but who knows), so I'm not likely to be the best person to present your case. I can't see anything that tells me you shouldn't be trusted, but I'm not by any means up to date with RfA standards. Also, for what it's worth, adminship is the sort of thing that shouldn't be seen as a goal, so I wouldn't worry about bending over backwards just to the end of being promoted. Take it from me, it's not as glamorous as you would think! Best of luck with whatever you feel though. Juliancolton (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.
If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. Grapple X (submissions) currently leads, followed by Sasata (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.
It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!
There are currently 15,862 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 345 unreviewed articles. Out of 439 total nominations, 24 are on hold, 66 are under review, and 4 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article! Even just reviewing one will help!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Social sciences and society (80 articles), Sports and recreation (70 articles), Music (63 articles), Theatre, film and drama (52 articles), and History (41 articles). Please consider reviewing articles within these sections.
There are currently 13 articles up for reassessment at Good Article Reassessment. Please help out and go to WP:GAR and review an article! Remember that anyone can review articles that are listed under "Community Reassessment" even if another user has already listed their opinion...the more opinions, the better!
Member News
There are currently 222 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to all the new members that joined during the past 17 months! If you aren't yet part of WikiProject Good Articles and interested in joining WikiProject Good Articles, go here and add you name. Everyone is welcomed!
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
If you haven't done so already, please remember to add your name to this list if you are still interested/active with this WikiProject. If you are no longer interested/active you don't need to add your name anywhere, you're name will be moved into a "inactive participant" list at the beginning of November. Inactive users will not receive future newsletters from this WikiProject via their talk page.
GA Task forces
There is currently not much going on at this time but there is a very large backlog. Until the next backlog elimination drive, please help reduce the number of nominations by reviewing articles and helping other reviewers that may need second opinions.
Thanks to everyone who committed some time to help reduce the nominations backlog during the June-July 2012 backlog elimination drive. Most barnstars have been given out but there are still a few left. Participants that haven't gotten a barnstar yet should get it soon.
Possible Fall/Winter 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive
A discussion is currently being held on the WikiProject's talk page on weather another eliminations drive should take place within the next few months as the last one proved to be extremely successful. Please take the time to go to the the talk page and include your opinion on if you would be interested in taking part in a Fall/Winter 2012 elimination drive.
Good Articles of the Month
Each month, 5 random good articles will be choose to be featured here as the good articles of the month.
Having references included in articles is one of the most important aspects to a good article, let alone Wikipedia! Without them, no one would ever know what is true and what is false and Wikipedia probably wouldn't be where it is today. So this month, I will talk about how to check for references, how reliable they are, and so on and so forth.
The first thing to do when reviewing an nominee is to do a quick scan of the article. One of the things to look for is if the article has references! If you don't see a list at the bottom of the article page, quick-fail it.[2] For newcomers, quick-failing is failing an article when you spot a problem before actually conducting a full review. If you do find a list of references (and in most cases you will) make sure to look through each and every one. If you want to save some time, use this tool as it will tell you if there are any problematic references in the article you are reviewing.
Next, check the reliability and type of the references/sources. In terms of the type of reference, check to see how many primary and/or secondary sources are included. Primary sources are the ones published by the subject of the article. For example, if the subject of the article has to do with the iPhone 4s and the source is published by Apple, it is considered a primary source. Secondary sources are those not published by the subject of the article (or in close relation to it). Newspapers are examples of secondary sources and considered one of the better types to include in the article (not saying primary sources are bad). If you find that most/all of the references are primary sources, notify the nominator about this issue(s) and place the article on hold once you have completed the review. Only in the event that a secondary source can't be found as a replacement, then the primary source can remain. If there is a good mix of primary and secondary sources, that is perfect and no references need to be changed.
Now, reliability. Forums are generally not considered reliable and some blog's may not be reliable either. Newspapers, most sources published by the subject, some blogs, etc. are considered reliable. If you don't know wether the source is reliable, ask for a second opinion. For more info about how to identify wether a reference is reliable or not, visit this article.
Finally, one of the more basic things to look for is that every statement in the article has at least one reference! The only case that a statement doesn't need a reference is when it is common sense that the statement is defiantly true and/or in the case where the statement can't be challenged, as per what Wikipedia says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation."
From the Editor
After a long 18 month hiatus, the third volume of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter is here! Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue of the newsletter here or on the editors talk page.
Also, Happy Halloween...in advance!!!
PLEASE READ: If you do not wish to receive future WikiProject Good Articles newsletter's on your talk page, please remove your self from this list. If you are viewing this newsletter from the WikiProject Good Articles page or on someone else's talk page and want to receive future newsletters on your talk page, please add your name to the list linked above.
^Before quick-failing the article, verify that one of the several referencing templates is correctly placed at the bottom of the article. If the template is not placed, try to place it to see if references are displayed. If this proof returns no references, then proceed to quick-failing.
Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005!
Delivered October 3, 2012 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter any longer, please remove your name from this list.
→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Participation: Out of 41 people who signed up this drive, 28 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
Progress report: We achieved our primary goal of clearing July, August, September and October 2011 from the backlog. This means that, for the first time since the drives began, the backlog is less than a year. At least 677 tagged articles were copy edited, although 365 new ones were added during the month. The total backlog at the end of the month was 2341 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We completed all 54 requests outstanding before September 2012 as well as eight of those made in September.
Copy Edit of the Month: Voting is now over for the August 2012 competition, and prizes will be issued soon. The September 2012 contest is closed for submissions and open for voting. The October 2012 contest is now open for submissions. Everyone is welcome to submit entries and to vote.
You're invited: Ada Lovelace, STEM women edit-a-thon at Harvard
U.S. Ada Lovelace Day 2012 edit-a-thon, Harvard University - You are invited!
Now in its fourth year, Ada Lovelace Day is an international celebration of women in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and related fields. Participants from around New England are invited to gather together at Harvard Law School to edit and create Wikipedia entries on women who have made significant contributions to the STEM fields. Register to attend or sign up to participate remotely - visit this page to do either. 00:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
STO, I think it's an excellent idea for you to take the night off. You've done pretty well for yourself by avoiding a block, which certainly would have been justified—you're being disruptive by all counts. You disclose on your userpage that you're 14, and your behavior is about on par with what I'd expect from a young teenager. You could probably regain some respect by simply distancing yourself from the issue at hand, but if nothing else, try not to get blocked. ~Juliancolton (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
My Responce (October 14, 2012)
I understand that your an administrator and all, and I see what your trying to tell me. The only problem I have with your response is the fact that you (and others) think I'm being disruptive. How? I'm just simply stating my User rights. Wikipedia is a free editing community and I'm free to edit this page (right?). And another thing, I don't like how you judge my age with my personality. This world is very judgmental, I know that. Even though people try to not judge someone, they kind of do judge on the inside. I think that many adults look at the word "teenager" and say "Oh, teenagers cause problems and aren't very smart", I find that opinion from adults very offensive. I don't think that is what your meant to say, but that is the way I'm reading it. Also, I stopped editing a debate a few hours ago because we rather reached a consensus, or it got to "violent". But, I appreciate you boldly telling me what you think I'm doing wrong. ~STO12 (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)STO12 (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
The October 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best October copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC).
NEW!! In the week from Sunday 21 October to Saturday 27 October, we are holding a Project Blitz, in which we will copy edit articles tagged with {{copyedit}} belonging to selected project(s). For the first blitz, we'll start with WikiProject Olympics and WikiProject Albums and add more Projects to the blitz as we clear them. The blitz works much like our bimonthly drives, but a bit simpler. Everyone is welcome to take part, and barnstars will be awarded.
November 2012 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in 2011 and to complete all requests placed before the end of October. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in 2011", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest.
hello there! just saw you're a participant in the fungi project. i created a few stubs recently, and was wondering if the project needed some assistance in that regard. i hope you can let me know. cheers! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to Cwmhiraeth (submissions), our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009), Sturmvogel 66 (2010) and Hurricanehink (2011). Our final standings were as follows:
Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.
The featured article award goes to Grapple X (submissions), for four featured articles in the final round.
The good article award also goes to Grapple X (submissions), for 19 good articles in the second round.
The list award goes to Muboshgu (submissions), for three featured lists in the final round.
The topic award goes to Grapple X (submissions), for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
The did you know award goes to Cwmhiraeth (submissions), for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
The news award goes to ThaddeusB (submissions), for 10 in the news items in round 3.
The picture award goes to Grandiose (submissions), for two featured pictures in round 2.
Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to Cwmhiraeth (submissions).
Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.
Participation: Out of 31 people signed up for this drive so far, 22 have copy-edited at least one article. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us!
Progress report: We're on track to meet our targets for the drive. We have reduced our target group of articles—November and December 2011—by over 50%, and 34 of the the 56 requests made in September and October this year have already been fulfilled. However, the rate of tagging for copy edit has increased, and this month we are just keeping the size of the backlog stable. So, all you copy editors, please do come along and help us!
Seasonal oversight: We had a slight fall from grace in the title of our last newletter, which mentioned the season in the northern hemisphere and thus got it wrong for the southern. Fortunately an observant GOCE member was ready to spring into action to advise us. Thanks! In future we'll stay meteorologically neutral.
Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.
JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swallingwikimedia.org) with...
the subject line "JSTOR"
your English Wikipedia username
your preferred email address for a JSTOR account
The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.
You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.
Participation: Thanks to all who participated! Out of 38 people who signed up this drive, 33 copy-edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. All the barnstars have now been distributed.
Progress report: We achieved our primary goal of clearing November and December 2011 from the backlog. For the first time since the drives began, the backlog consists only of articles tagged in the current year. The total backlog at the end of the month was 2690 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We completed all 56 requests outstanding before November 2012 as well as eight of those made in November.
Copy Edit of the Month: Voting is now over for the October 2012 competition, and prizes have been issued. The November 2012 contest is closed for submissions and open for voting. The December 2012 contest is now open for submissions. Everyone is welcome to submit entries and to vote.
Coodinator election: The six-month term for our fourth tranche of Guild coordinators will expire at the end of December. Nominations are open for the fifth tranche of coordinators, who will serve from 1 January to 30 June 2013. For complete information, please have a look at the election page.
The December 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best December copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC).
From Sunday 16 December to Saturday 22 December, we are holding a Project Blitz, in which we will copy edit articles tagged with {{copyedit}} from January 2012. The blitz works much like our bimonthly drives, but a bit simpler. Everyone is welcome to take part, and barnstars will be awarded.
January 2013 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on January 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in January, February, and March 2012 and complete all requests placed before the end of 2012. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in January, February, and March 2012", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest.
Coodinator election: Nominations are open for candidates to serve as GOCE coordinators from 1 January to 30 June 2013. Nominations close on December 15 at 23:59 UTC, after which voting will run until the end of December. For complete information, please have a look at the election page.
Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn19:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Doing the "Open Space" thing at one of our earlier NYC Wiki-Conferences.
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!
Here's a toast to the host
Of those who edit wiki near and far,
To a friend we send a message, "keep the data up to par".
We drink to those who wrote a lot of prose,
And then they whacked a vandal several dozen blows.
A toast to the host of those who boast, the Wikipedians!
- From {{subst:TheGeneralUser}}
~TheGeneralUser(talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at ~~~~~
~TheGeneralUser(talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I made several edits to try to improve the article. Could you please take a look at it again to see what further work (other than NCDC) needs to be done. Thanks, United States Man (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Juliancolton, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The competition begins at midnight UTC. 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 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.
Hello! As a past participant in the U.S. portion of the USRD Cup, you may be interested to know that we are doing it again this year! Signups are at the above page and the contest will begin February 1. --Rschen775410:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I made several edits to try to improve the article. Could you please take a look at it again to see what further work (other than NCDC) needs to be done. Thanks, United States Man (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I highly recommend waiting until the NCDC data is released before nominating it for GA again...all data is considered preliminary until the final data is released by the NCDC. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)00:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader (Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:
Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.
This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:
Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.
Also, a quick mention of The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hurricane Elena, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Landfall (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.
WP:DTTR, mainly. The user didn't really misuse the interface as blatantly as your template would suggest, so I found it unfair for their talkpage to be spammed with notices spawned by perfectly constructive edits. It's far better to leave a brief, hand-typed note; I think most people are more likely to take notice for it. Juliancolton (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
You used an essay to trump a guideline? "didn't really", "unfair" and "far better" aren't exactly very objective clear-cut phrases... none of which fit anything under WP:TPO. The better thing to do would have been to ask me to remove it; as an admin, it's pretty concerning that you took the course of action you did without even notifying me that you removed it. And it's even more concerning that your reasoning was the use of an essay to trump a guideline. Furthermore, nowhere in the essay does it say anything about removing the template. It says, "The editor using the template ... may not themselves consider the template use rude." And that's what happened here. The essay ends with "Take the template as a reminder and/or constructive criticism and move on." The user did misuse the minor edit feature, something that has been an increasing problem in the project recently, so I used the template. I typically use the template because it's the same format for everyone, so it avoids coming across as too harsh on one person, since it's the same for everyone. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I won't lose sleep if you spam the user's page with the template again for good measure if that's what you're wondering. Sorry if I'm being blunt, but if there's one thing I grew to hate over my five or six years of editing, it's autotagged warnings for anybody except blatant vandals or really clueless newbies. Juliancolton (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not spamming anybody's page. You may hate autotagged warnings, but that is a personal preference, and one that does not override a guideline. That you're not seeming to think you did something against the guidelines is a bit concerning. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
It's concerning because you are trumping a guideline with an essay, and as an admin you should know better. People generally view admins' actions as having more weight, especially on talk pages, so if others see you engaging in such behavior, they may think it is acceptable. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
And that's the problem - it shouldn't be my place to have to revert anything. The guideline is clear that comments on talk pages should only be removed on rare occasions, and the reason of "I don't like it" isn't one of those reasons. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
← Honestly, I guess it just strikes me as woefully condescending to tell off people on the internet because they removed a couple superfluous words and marked the changes as "minor", even though a minor edit is really only for syntax changes and not for tweaking content because that's what The GuidelineTM says. Can you please just step back and ask yourself why you care so much? I could explain how the user's edits were extremely inconsequential and thus very compatible with WP:MINOR from a couple different angles if you'd like. Juliancolton (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Again, what strikes you as woefully condescending may not strike others (like myself) as such, and at best, even if you are correct, the template would be uncivil, which the guideline clearly states is not a reason to edit/remove another's comments. But as I explained, I have a reason for preferring the use of templates, because it's more objective and avoids the subjectivity that so frequently leads to misunderstandings and misconstruing of the purpose of the template. Removing "non-convective" changes the meaning of the sentence. Whether or not there is convection in a cyclone's remnants deals with the very structure and inner workings of the system. There is absolutely no way it was compatible with WP:MINOR, as their removal changed the meaning of the sentence. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Indeed you can; that's probably why the term "non-convective" was removed to start with. The old wording was inaccurate and constituted subtle original research, as the TCRs either never specified whether the remnant lows were still producing thunderstorms, or used various wording ("lack of deep convection) that is not consistent with "non-convective". Indeed, "non-convective" opens up several cans of atmospheric dynamic worms, such as whether all thermodynamic processes were really shut down, or if there was just limited thunderstorm generation. So from both meteorological and linguistic standpoints, the changes in question were of a minor nature by any and all accounts. The infinitely helpful Help:Minor edit page says factual errors are well within the realm of minor adjustments, and I'm sure you'll agree that increasing Wikipedia's accuracy and credibility within a field of science is in our best interests, and surely not worth giving people grief over. Juliancolton (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the edit should have been done, but again, you are wrong about WO:MINOR. It says, "Obvious factual errors (e.g., changing "Nixon resigned in 1874" to "Nixon resigned in 1974")". If all fixing of factual errors were minor edits, a lot more edits would be considered "minor" than they are now. Here, the change was not an "obvious" factual error. So while the edit was a good edit, it should not have been marked minor. And it's clear that the change was not "obvious", because you and TropicalAnalystwx13 gave different reasons for why the change was made. He said that "non-convective remnant" was redundant, while you are saying that there may or may not have been convection still going on. The fact that there could be such a disagreement shows that it should not have been marked "minor". Inks.LWC (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll agree it was redundant for most intents, but inaccurate at a very technical level. I don't think there's much more for either of us to say, except I ask that you allow me to recommend avoiding warning templates for relatively long-standing and constructive users. If being an admin makes that suggestion carry more weight in your eyes then that's my official administrative opinion. Juliancolton (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Something can't be redundant and inaccurate. It is either redundant or inaccurate. If it was redundant, then marking it minor was fine. If it was inaccurate, then it was not. And here, I do not see any evidence that it was redundant. I'm fine with you recommending that, but it is inappropriate for you to remove such a template that another editor places on someone's talk page. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
hurricanes
Thank you for quality articles on hurricanes, writing, collaborating, copy-editing, such as 1910 Cuba hurricane1941 Florida hurricane, Typhoon Chataan ..., and for "your efforts to extend and improve the communication levels of Wikipedia", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (4 February 2009, 23 March 2009, 1 April 2009)!
Participation: Out of 19 people who signed up for this blitz, 9 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
Progress report: During the six-day blitz, we removed over twenty articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, BDD and Miniapolis.
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.
Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.
Other contributors of note include:
Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...
March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!
A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. 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. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles - Participant Clean-up (Second Call)
You are reciving this message because you have not added your name to the list of active WikiProject Good Articles participants. Though you may have recived the first message sent out in September, some users may have had that message archived before coming online to read it and therefore never saw it. If you are deeming yourself inactive with the WikiProject please disregard this message as your name will be moved to an "inactive participant" list at the end of the clean-up. If you are still active with the WikiProject, please be sure to include your name on this list. The current deadline to add your name to the list (if you are still active) is November 1, 2012. A third and final message will be sent out during the last week of the clean-up before the deadline. Thank-you.--EdwardsBot
WikiProject Good Articles - Participant Clean-up (Final Call)
You are receiving this message because you have not added your name to the list of active WikiProject Good Articles participants. Though you may have recived the past two messages sent out in September and October, some users may have had that message archived before coming online to read it and therefore never saw it. If you are deeming yourself inactive with the WikiProject please disregard this message as your name will be moved to an "inactive participant" list at the end of the clean-up. If you are still active with the WikiProject, please be sure to include your name on this list. The deadline to add your name to the list (if you are still active) is November 1, 2012. This will be the last message sent out before the deadline which is in 2 days. Thank-you.--EdwardsBot
Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 December 2012
Holiday cheer
Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidttalkbackis wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be a newbie, a good friend, someone you have had disagreements with in the past, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS
WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - February 2013
Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 12 February 2012
WikiProject:REHAB update
You signed up for WikiProject User Rehab
Hi there, I'm RDN1F. It's come to my attention that you've signed up for WikiProject Rehab, but since that time the project has retired. I've decided to take it upon myself to rejuvenate the project - but I could do with your help. If you are still willing to help mentor (or even give me a hand in bringing this project back!) leave a message on my talk page RDN1FTALK16:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
