User talk:Fox/August 2011
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Fox. 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. |
WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are 
Adabow (submissions) (Pool A, 189 points) and 
PresN (submissions) (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from 
Casliber (submissions)) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from 
Another Believer (submissions)). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!
There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 11:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 01 August 2011
- In the news: Consensus of Wikipedia authors questioned about Shakespeare authorship; 10 biggest edit wars on Wikipedia; brief news
- Research interview: The Huggle Experiment: interview with the research team
- WikiProject report: Little Project, Big Heart — WikiProject Croatia
- Featured content: Featured pictures is back in town
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision submitted for one case
- Technology report: Developers descend on Haifa; wikitech-l discussions; brief news
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Eurovision update
WikiProject Eurovision is currently suffering from inactivity, despite having a large number of active users as project members. It is recommended that you add the project talk page to your watchlist if you have not already done so, since there are a number of proposals on this talk page which will significantly impact on the project that should be of interest to you.
You are receiving this message since you are listed as a member of WikiProject Eurovision. If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision, please remove your username from this page.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision at 22:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC).
The Signpost: 08 August 2011
- News and notes: Wikimania a success; board letter controversial; and evidence showing bitten newbies don't stay
- In the news: Israeli news focuses on Wikimania; worldwide coverage of contributor decline and gender gap; brief news
- WikiProject report: Shooting the breeze with WikiProject Firearms
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Manipulation of BLPs case opened; one case comes to a close
- Technology report: Wikimania technology roundup; brief news
The Signpost: 15 August 2011
- Women and Wikipedia: New Research, WikiChix
- WikiProject report: The Oregonians
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Abortion case opened, two more still in progress
- Technology report: Forks, upload slowness and mobile redirection
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to check...
Since you changed a revisions visibility for a revision on User:Joe Chill, perhaps you can also RevDel this revision as well? LikeLakers2 (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 00:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Talkback
Message added 01:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Rose Doudou Guei Biography Redirect
I added this biography, and it is now redirecting to the biography of her husband Robert Guei. I saw on the history that one editor wanted to speedy delete it, and you redirected it. I want to appeal this decision and I'd like to know how to do it. I want the biography kept on the grounds that it is of a notable person. Rose Doudou Geui was the First Lady of Cote d'Ivoire (a country in Africa). Her husband was President of Cote d'Ivoire. First Ladies of other countries are considered notable enough to have biographies in Wikipedia. (There are five biographies for First Ladies of the State of Kentucky). Please let me know. Thank you, OttawaAC (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
afd closes
I see that today you've made an umber of AfD closes a little on the early side. I haven't any objection at all to any of the closes I've noticed, in terms of closes--they were in fact generally rather obvious. But it's policy that we wait 7 full days. Please do wait the full 7 X 24 hours. Even a few hours early tend to drift, as other people go to 6 then 12 hours early, etc.--and it's gotten even worse than this in the past. You know what inevitably happens when we start reacing each other. I'm not at all a stickler for exact timed procedure, but this is one place where it matters.-- First, someone may have something different to say at the last minute, that changes things--it does not happen often, but it does happen a few times a week. Second, new admins and people preparing to become admins need a chance. (It was different back in 08 when you became an admin--things were much sloppier then, & in fact, I think just 5 days was the standard at the time.) DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 August 2011
- News and notes: Girl Geeks edit while they dine, candidates needed for forthcoming steward elections, image referendum opens
- WikiProject report: Images in Motion – WikiProject Animation
- Featured content: JJ Harrison on avian photography
- Arbitration report: After eleven moves, name for islands now under arbitration
- Technology report: Engineering report, sprint, and more testers needed
AfD
I was going to post a wtf message here but it seems that you corrected yourself. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 18:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 19:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I would like to request that you reconsider your early closure of the subject AfD (the original nominator has initiated a DRV but I noticed he has not commented here). I fail to see how this AfD nomination qualifies under any of the 5 criteria at WP:SK. The nominator did advance an argument for deletion, this was not "unquestionably vandalism or disruption", and the nominator is not banned as far as I am aware. It's also not a policy/guideline and as far as I can tell it's not linked from the Main Page. I do not necessarily support deletion, and this AfD may yet result in a WP:SNOW keep, but I think that four minutes is way too short to gauge that. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
2011 Virginia Earthquake
I'm a bit confused about the initial closure of this AFD. Was it an accident or did you regret the decision soon after?--RadioFan (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NBD listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:NBD. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:NBD redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). It Is Me Here t / c 15:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Eurovision: Recent changes
Hello,
Please note that there have been some changes to operations surrounding Eurovision articles, these being that:
- Template names have now been standardised, for example Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest and Template:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest have both been moved in order to be consistent. If you are planning to create a new template, please keep the standardised titles in mind.
{{WikiProject Eurovision}}now accepts importance ratings as well as quality ratings, and the project now has a formal assessment department which gives details on how to assess articles, and provides a place for contributors to request re-assessment. Feel free to add the{{WikiProject Eurovision}}template to the talk page of any new Eurovision articles you create.- The Eurovision Song Contest now has its own stub template at
{{Eurovision-stub}}. Please only use this on Eurovision Song Contest stubs, with{{Music-stub}}and{{Dance-stub}}being the appropriate template for other Eruovision contests.
If you have any questions, please ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision.
You are receiving this message since you are listed as a member of WikiProject Eurovision. If you are no longer interested in contributing to Eurovision articles, please remove your username from this page.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision at 15:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC).
User:Ranchereach, User:Careshi, User:PaulKreder, 50.17.157.252, 74.83.169.234 are all sockpuppets of User:OSUHEY, and I'm almost certain User:Halwolff is one too. There are no substantive edits by other users that I can see in that article. See Wikipedia:AN#User:OSUHEY ban discussion for more. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
|
Hello Fox! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 04:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC) |
The Signpost: 29 August 2011
- News and notes: Abuse filter on all Wikimedia sites; Foundation's report for July; editor survey results
- Recent research: Article promotion by collaboration; deleted revisions; Wikipedia's use of open access; readers unimpressed by FAs; swine flu anxiety
- Opinion essay: How an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Tennis
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Four existing cases
- Technology report: The bugosphere, new mobile site and MediaWiki 1.18 close in on deployment
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
August 2011
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Ironholds (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have concerns about this block and am going to ask that it be reviewed. Please see my comments on the page of the blocking admin. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- I would like to make it very clear that this block was semi-requested offwiki as I was certainly as much in the wrong as the other user in this dispute. Ironholds was right to block me in this instance, be I an admin or not. — Joseph Fox 22:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Neither of you should have been blocked. This was a good-faith editing dispute that was being discussed (albeit via edit summaries rather than on talk which would have been better), and there is absolutely no reason that a relatively mild warning to each of you would not have been sufficient. Blocking is not a first resort. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, perhaps you're right. I'll leave that to Ironholds to sort out. — Joseph Fox 22:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Neither of you should have been blocked. This was a good-faith editing dispute that was being discussed (albeit via edit summaries rather than on talk which would have been better), and there is absolutely no reason that a relatively mild warning to each of you would not have been sufficient. Blocking is not a first resort. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- This isn't the first issue this week, jumping the gun and speedily deleting an article mid AFD created created some disruption. A block will give Fox a much needed breather to slow down a bit. This isn't how admins are supposed to edit.--RadioFan (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't recall doing this. Link me? — Joseph Fox 22:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- I can only assume you refer to this, which was patently obviously a mistake, and quickly undone. — Joseph Fox 22:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am referring to that and appreciate that it was quickly undone but since it multiple editors were involved in this mistake and created a general since of confusion among editors new and old, I found it disruptive. Admins are held to higher standards.--RadioFan (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- ...So you're saying that admins can never ever make mistakes and, when they inevitably do, they should be punished for them? — Joseph Fox 00:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Everyone makes mistakes. Expecting admins to never ever make a mistake is somewhat absurd, they are human like the rest of us. I think RadioFan is being unfair in this case. OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 00:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- ...So you're saying that admins can never ever make mistakes and, when they inevitably do, they should be punished for them? — Joseph Fox 00:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am referring to that and appreciate that it was quickly undone but since it multiple editors were involved in this mistake and created a general since of confusion among editors new and old, I found it disruptive. Admins are held to higher standards.--RadioFan (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I can only assume you refer to this, which was patently obviously a mistake, and quickly undone. — Joseph Fox 22:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't recall doing this. Link me? — Joseph Fox 22:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Please dont put words in my mouth. Everyone makes mistakes but admins are also held to a higher standard, like it or not. Blocks aren't supposed to be punishments they provide time for things to calm down, which is what is needed here. Even admins need this from time to time.--RadioFan (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, admins are held to a higher standard of behaviour, but in this instance it was a case of clicking the wrong button. Anyone, anywhere could've made that mistake in the situation, and Fox fixed it as soon as he noticed. I don't see how it's relevant here, a block wouldn't be needed in that case as there's nothing to calm down. OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 00:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You have patently never read our guidelines on this, then. — Joseph Fox 00:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm referring more to the guideline that Blocks should not be punitive--RadioFan (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- That particular phrase is entirely horseshit. Blocks are frequently punitive, in fact they almost always are. If they weren't, unblocks would be granted as soon as someone said "Oops, my bad." The very simple fact is that 'blocks aren't punitive' is one of the biggest institutional lies on Wikipedia, and it is frustrating that people spout it so often. → ROUX ₪ 20:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, Roux, I wish to counteract that - I will only block if I am relatively sure it will prevent further harm to the encyclopaedia. I'm a little offended that you would lump "admins" into one big wrong-doing person when, in reality, we are several hundred people with several hundred ideas of when and when not to block. — Joseph Fox 20:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think you're reacting to something I didn't even say. I never lumped admins into one group; I was pointing out the essential lie that is 'blocks aren't punitive.' They very often--most of the time--are. Don't take offence at things I haven't said; I said exactly what I meant. → ROUX ₪ 19:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, Roux, I wish to counteract that - I will only block if I am relatively sure it will prevent further harm to the encyclopaedia. I'm a little offended that you would lump "admins" into one big wrong-doing person when, in reality, we are several hundred people with several hundred ideas of when and when not to block. — Joseph Fox 20:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- That particular phrase is entirely horseshit. Blocks are frequently punitive, in fact they almost always are. If they weren't, unblocks would be granted as soon as someone said "Oops, my bad." The very simple fact is that 'blocks aren't punitive' is one of the biggest institutional lies on Wikipedia, and it is frustrating that people spout it so often. → ROUX ₪ 20:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- And what would that block be if not to punish me? — Joseph Fox 00:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm referring more to the guideline that Blocks should not be punitive--RadioFan (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:
Casliber (submissions), Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
PresN (submissions), Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
Hurricanehink (submissions), Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
Wizardman (submissions), Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
Miyagawa (submissions), the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
Resolute (submissions), the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
Yellow Evan (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
Sp33dyphil (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.
We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists, Another Believer (submissions), 
Piotrus (submissions), 
Grandiose (submissions), 
Stone (submissions), 
Eisfbnore (submissions), 
Canada Hky (submissions) and 
MuZemike (submissions). Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.
In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate Ucucha (talk · contribs). The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.
A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)