User talk:Gfoley4/Archives/2012/May

USRD WikiProject Newsletter, Spring 2012

Volume 5, Issue 2 • Spring 2012 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Paving a path forward with KML Down and dirty with KML SPSs in need of removal from articles Maple Syrup Report	State and national updates Project news Task force reports for CA, DE, and MI
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—Imzadi 1979 → 00:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Consultant: Pete Forsyth

• News and notes: Showdown as featured article writer openly solicits commercial opportunities

• Recent research: Barnstars work; Wiktionary assessed; cleanup tags counted; finding expert admins; discussion peaks; Wikipedia citations in academic publications; and more

• Discussion report: 'ReferenceTooltips' by default

• WikiProject report: The Cartographers of WikiProject Maps

• Featured content: Featured content spreads its wings

• Arbitration report: R&I Review remains in voting, two open cases

• Technology report: What Git means for end users, design controversies and pertinent poll results

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Communicator: Phil Gomes

• News and notes: Hong Kong to host Wikimania 2013

• In the news: What does Wikipedia call an expert; and untruths in biographies ... again.

• WikiProject report: Say What?: WikiProject Languages

• Featured content: This week at featured content: How much wood would a Wood Duck chuck if a Wood Duck could chuck wood?

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision in Rich Farmbrough, two open cases

• Technology report: Search gets faster, GSoC gets more detail and 1.20wmf2 gets deployed

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Twitter not reliable?

How come a comment on the official twitter of somebody doesn't count as a "reliable" source? I believe that's first hand source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artcuate (talk • contribs) 11:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:TWITTER #4. I believe this is a joke, and there is doubt in my mind of its authenticity. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Flushing and North Side Railroad

How did my article on the Flushing and North Side Railroad earn a C-class rating? I'm not complaining, not by a long shot. I just want to know what I did right. ----DanTD (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

See here. In my opinion, the article you made is way better than a "start" class. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

• Special report: Wikimedia and the "seismic shift" towards open-access research publication

• News and notes: Finance debate drags on as editor survey finds Wikipedia too bureaucratic

• WikiProject report: Welcome to Wikipedia with a cup of tea and all your questions answered - at the Teahouse

• Featured content: Featured content is red hot this week

• Arbitration report: R&I Review closed, Rich Farmbrough near closure

• Technology report: Cross-wiki watchlist controversy; and is "go file a bug" really a useful response?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions. SwisterTwister talk 01:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

• From the editor: New editor-in-chief

• News and notes: Two new Wikimedia fellows to boost strategies for tackling major issues

• WikiProject report: Trouble in a Galaxy Far, Far Away....

• Featured content: Lemurbaby moves it with Madagascar: Featured content for the week

• Arbitration report: No open arbitration cases pending

• Technology report: On the indestructibility of Wikimedia content

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

AIV

How can you simply clear the page without taking any action on these vandalism reports? That simply makes no sense. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 03:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I should have put a better edit summary. Anyways, IP #1 was not really vandalism and rather stale. IP #2 should be taken to WP:AN3 as it is edit warring, not vandalism/spamming. IP #3 should be taken to WP:ANI as it is again not vandalism. The account should have no action taken on it again as it is not vandalism and I'm not sure on the possible outing. Finally, the IP you reported did not, in my view, did not actually vandalize. It's not obvious that the IP was trying to harm Wikipedia. They should be cautioned to used edit summaries to explain their edits although. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 03:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I can comment only on the IP I listed, who has repeatedly removed those, and other, templates from Willy Wonka-related articles, despite being asked numerous times not to do so, or to explain his reasons for doing so. He has failed on both counts. The repeated deletion of legitimate templates, despite warnings, and in the absence of an explanation, seems like vandalism to me. Perhaps you would have better luck convincing him? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 14:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I can agree that the editing is disruptive – but I didn't view it as enough to block at that time. I will put the page on my watchlist and will certainly consider blocking the IP if they continue. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 18:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate that. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 03:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Appeal

Articles for Creation is backlogged and needs YOUR help! Articles for Creation is desperately in need of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors and administrators alike, to help us clear a record backlog of pending submissions. There is currently a significant backlog of 1038 submissions waiting to be reviewed. These submissions are generally from new editors who have never edited Wikipedia before. A prompt, constructive review of submissions could significantly editor retention. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you (at least) autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. Click here to review to a random submissionArticle selected by erwin85's random article script on toolserver. We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 1 or 2 reviews, would be extremely beneficial. On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, AndrewN talk 23:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation endorses open-access petition to the White House; pending changes RfC ends

• Recent research: Supporting interlanguage collaboration; detecting reverts; Wikipedia's discourse, semantic and leadership networks, and Google's Knowledge Graph

• WikiProject report: Experts and enthusiasts at WikiProject Geology

• Featured content: Featured content cuts the cheese

• Arbitration report: Fæ and GoodDay requests for arbitration, changes to evidence word limits

• Technology report: Developer divide wrangles; plus Wikimedia Zero, MediaWiki 1.20wmf4, and IPv6

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)