User talk:Richwales/Archives/2010
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Richwales. 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. |
February 2010
Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Another Gospel. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Another Gospel [1]. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are not WP:RS sources. Cirt (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please stop adding material to the article Another Gospel that violates WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Cirt (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please see my comments and request for a broader discussion at Talk:Another_Gospel#Making_this_page_more_NPOV. Richwales (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Another Gospel
We brought in a neutral third-party opinion from the WP:3O process. This individual advised you to come up with suggestions backed up to specific sources. You have failed to do so. Instead, you have chosen to continue to make vague complaints on the talk page. You have refused to back up your claims with any sources whatsoever that support your positions, let alone sources specific to this book. Please stop this, your continued posting to the talk page in this manner is bordering on getting disruptive in nature. You appear to be using the talk page purely to advance a POV as your own personal forum, in violation of WP:NOT#FORUM. Please stop. Cirt (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Your ask for help
I would reccommend you take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and see what happens. Get help or see what other administrators think. I will keep a close eye on the situation either way. Hope this helps! House1090 (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- That is not the proper place, actually. I will start the next part of dispute resolution, which would be RFC. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I was thinking that, but it looks like its becoming more of a conflict between the two. Its just a suggestion, you guys might be able to resolve something there. House1090 (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I fear the issue may have gone too far to be resolvable in a simple way. However, if Cirt is willing to try an RFC, so am I. Richwales (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I was thinking that, but it looks like its becoming more of a conflict between the two. Its just a suggestion, you guys might be able to resolve something there. House1090 (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
RFC for Another Gospel
Please see Talk:Another_Gospel#RfC:_NPOV_and_article_Another_Gospel. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I will be involved until it resolved, may I suggest you have my talkpage on your watchlist as I will reply there. House1090 (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Are we done???
Can we please be done with addressing your complaints yet? Do you accept and acknowledge that I have been working very very hard to expand the contents section using additional research from secondary sources? Do you see how I have addressed and responded quickly to multiple different specific points you have brought up on the talk page? Thanks, Cirt (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- The quality of discussion and editing on Another Gospel has improved dramatically over the past two days. I believe more work still needs to be done on the content of the page, but the process is no longer at an impasse and doesn't appear to continue requiring special outside attention. If you would like to cancel the RFC at this time, I have no objection. Richwales (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, if you "believe more work still needs to be done", even after all of the very very hard work that I have put into this in order to respond to your multiple complaints, and even after I have quickly addressed many of your concerns, even quickly removing content, myself, from the article, then the RFC should (unfortunately) probably remain open for the time being. This is most unfortunate and regrettable. It is too bad you cannot realize that conflicts are ideally resolved through compromise, and not acquiescing to one party's complaints all the time. :( Cirt (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- What I mean is that I believe the process of working on this page is back on track — through the constructive efforts and hard work of many people (you as well as others). There will obviously continue to be ongoing discussions about ways to improve the content further (including possibly some more improvement along some of the lines I had originally brought up), but it appears to me now that this can all be accomplished in the normal way, and that this page no longer requires extraordinary oversight to any greater degree than the average Wikipedia article does. Richwales (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
IPA
Hi,
I don't know if you've made other IPA changes like you did a few months ago at paradigm,[2] but we don't normally list pronunciations in the various dialects of English. It gets to be a real mess, and the reader can't tell from the key which one they should be using. kwami (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'd be grateful for references to policies on this. With all possible respect, I disagree with the way the pronunciation is shown in the article now, because for many English speakers, /ˈpærədaɪm/ is just plain wrong — for speakers in areas that have undergone the Mary-marry-merry merger, the only correct pronunciation is /ˈpɛrədaɪm/. If we need to insist on showing only one pronunciation, /ˈpɛrədaɪm/ is probably the majority North American pronunciation. Richwales (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Why should US English get precedence? This isn't US Wikipedia. Check the IPA key at the link and its talk page. /ær/ is the sound in "marry"; it doesn't really matter whether you pronounce that [æɾ] or [ɛɻ] or s.t. else. If you pronounce "paradigm" with the same vowel as in "marry", then it will be correct no matter which your dialect. However, if you pronounce it with the vowel of "merry", then it will only be correct if you have the merger, but will be incorrect for everyone else. Better to use the pronunciation that is always correct than the one that is often wrong. kwami (talk) 07:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've raised the issue on the article's talk page. Let's see what others say. Richwales (talk) 07:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Bringing back pantyhose content removed in cleanup
You are invited to join the discussion here. Juventas (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})
Thanks for trying to fix the issue at Stana Katic here [3]. I had a feeling it wouldn't last long, though, and I actually think someone tried that once before. But it was a good try on your part. Much appreciated. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Barnstars
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| I'm awarding you this barnstar of diligence for your combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service to wikipedia. --White Trillium (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC) |
- Thanks. Richwales (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oops — White Trillium turned out to be a sockpuppet of a banned user. Let's just forget this happened, OK? Richwales (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your comment
This is with regards your comment:
rv heavily POV set of edits; I imagine you probably feel the existing text is POV in the other direction, but this is the result of a very long and painful discussion process on the talk page, which you need to join if you really want to contribute
I believe you are arguing in favor of misleading and subjective information about Cyprus. I do not need to join any conversation to remove falsified material from Wikipedia. Some of the information on the page is heavily biased and so we decided to amend it. Unless you have an - official - non-Turkish source to reference your contributions, then the amendments stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.251.223 (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Legend of the Seeker fan campaign.
The "Save our Seeker" campaign is actually really common knowledge now...every Seeker fan there is should know about it, not only did we publish an ad in a magazine, we have the actors and actresses support, even Terry Goodkind is helping us out. We have been heard and noticed by the higher powers that be..."if this is for real" shouldn't even have been said because I was under the impression that EVERY fan of the show knew about it, we have done a lot and chances of season 3 are looking better and better...we are even saving up money to get a commercial. I'm telling you season 3 WILL happen.
I'm not sure how to put in a source so here is a link or two for YOU to out as the source...
Source 1: http://www.legendoftheseeker.org/
Source 2: The saveourseeker site which for some reason is blocked by wikipedia...
Seekeroftruth469 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC).
- It looks like someone has already added back material about the renewal campaign, along with sources (at least one or two of which may be OK). Fan sites, blogs, and other "self-published sources" are generally not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia material (see WP:SPS); this is probably why the "saveourseeker" site you mentioned is being objected to, and it's possible that the "legendoftheseeker" site may end up being removed for the same reason. This may seem frustrating to you, but you need to read the Wikipedia "verifiability" policy (WP:V) in order to understand why some kinds of sources are OK but others are not. Richwales (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand but if you think about it...an official site can't really exist for a fan campaign since it's been organized by fans. One can't really exist...there has never been anything official about fan campaigns for any show, but the facts that it's happening are incontrovertible. The campaign is real and you should look into it. I think among the things cited there are official sites mentioning the campaign. You can delete the fan campaign reference from here if you want, but I'm not a troll nor do I vandalise. Look into the campaign yourself and see what all we have done. Seekeroftruth469 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC).
- I'm personally sympathetic to what you're saying, but you're arguing with the wrong person. This sort of discussion, if it needs to take place at all, belongs in the talk page for the article. As for your "the campaign is real, look into it yourself and see" argument, the standard counterargument is fairly well described (by some other editor, not by me) at Talk:Legend of the Seeker#Removal of fans' reception. If material in a fan site is sufficiently notable, reliable, and neutral, it should in theory be mentioned in a more conventional source, and that source should be cited. I am not questioning the good faith of your editing efforts here. Again, if and when the sources you've most recently placed in the article are objected to and removed, the most appropriate place to conduct a discussion would be in the article's talk page. Keep in mind, though, that (quoting from the verifiability policy) "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Richwales (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not arguing at all...I think you misunderstand me, I didn't suggest you look into the fan campaign to prove it exists, but merely so you might get interested in it as well. The more support the better. :) You make fair points as well. Seekeroftruth469 (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Richwales (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Ilknur at Northern Cyprus
According to this evidence, Ilknur appears to be a possible sock puppet of the banned User:Justice Forever. --Taivo (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know, and for reporting this. I'm sorry this user apparently just doesn't seem interested in following the rules. I realize the Cyprus conflict is an extremely polarizing topic, but that doesn't excuse inappropriate editing behaviour by people who are so thoroughly dedicated to their point of view that they can't tell the difference between NPOV and a POV opposite to their own. Richwales (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- So now we're just waiting for an admin to wander by and decide that the issue needs dealing with :) --Taivo (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Reattribute old IP edits to my account?
{{adminhelp}}
I made five edits in 2004, using my (static) home IP address at the time; this was before I signed up for a Wikipedia account in March 2005: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
Additionally, I made the following edit in 2006 via my (static) work IP address at the time; I had an account by this time but had inadvertently neglected to log in: [9]
Would it be possible to have my username (Richwales) added to the above edits so that they will show up as having been done via me?
The IP addresses in question were statically allocated; I was the only user of these addresses at the time, and I know the edits were performed by me.
Thanks for any help. Richwales (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Nope, it's not really possible. You can mention this on your userpage, but 5 edits is insignificant really--best thing to do is not to worry about it. —fetch·comms 22:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
My signature.
I'm sorry if my signature is not appropriate for a possible administrator; I'll go and change it back to its original form right now. And, action! (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Article at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The only concern I have is the stub tag. Personally, I think the article is long enough to remove the stub tag, but I wanted to leave that to your judgment. If this is resolved, I would be happy to approve the hook. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I see that NativeForeigner already agreed with you and removed the stub tag — and, as I indicated on Template talk:DYK, I have no objection if others feel the page is past the stub stage. Richwales (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Promoting your own articles as you did with White Horse Prophecy is discouraged. Generally it's only done when there are no other options available to an updater. I'm not going to remove your hook as it was independently verified, but please leave the choice of promoted articles to updaters. If everybody promoted their own articles, we would have chaos. Gatoclass (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for misstepping. I had (mis?)understood that since my article was the oldest approved article on the template talk page at the time, it was a proper candidate for any editor (myself included) to move into the prep area. I wasn't trying to mess up the process — the rules seemed straightforward enough to me when I read them, but if I missed an important issue (on this, my first venture into the DYK world), please accept my apologies. Richwales (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The Hungarian Language
Errm, excuse me? It's not original research. It's the truth from the other side - East.
Be sure to watch theese two videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWPCVMEsyeM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf-Q9rAieWU
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.236.52.194 (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Truth from the other side" may be OK — but you must provide suitable sources for such material before you can use it here (see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SPS, and WP:OR) — and the article as a whole "must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" (see WP:NPOV). Deleting mainstream material (together with the sources backing it up), and replacing it with unsourced claims is not considered acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. If you can find sources of the proper quality (see the policy pages I mentioned above), you are certainly free to add material suggesting an alternative view (and say something like "an alternative view from Turkish scholars" or whatever), but this would have to be in addition to the existing material describing the mainstream scholarly conclusion. These are core Wikipedia policies, and flagrant refusal to abide by them is likely to get you blocked from editing the site and deprive us of whatever constructive contributions you might otherwise have been able to make here. Richwales (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you!
Richwales - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.
I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.
Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.
Thank you! 7 23:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
DYK for White Horse Prophecy
 | On June 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article White Horse Prophecy, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Welcome
Bine ai venit, Rich! It's a pretty stale project (not surprising, since its original founders were blocked/banned), and I'm just barely keeping it alive, pretty much on my own. So glad to see people are still taking an interest. Dahn (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll be glad to do what I can. In the past, I've done some minor cleanup work in the Romanian language article. Also, a couple of years ago, I did an essentially complete rewrite of the article in the Romanian Wikipedia about the LDS (Mormon) Church (ro:Biserica lui Isus Hristos a Sfinţilor din Zilele din Urmă), after discovering that the original page was basically an anti-Mormon pamphlet from Noua Dreaptă or some equally virulent source. I've never been to Romania or Moldova yet, but I studied the language for a couple of years during my time as a graduate student. Richwales (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank spam!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
TFOWR 21:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Not thank spam, but check your inbox - you've got email! TFOWR 14:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xenotalk 16:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Q&A
Rich, that's an excellent summary and I agree with your views on the matter. FWIW, WP:SOCK now says:
- Note that editing under multiple IP addresses, without registering, can be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the above principles. Registered users who edit without logging in are treated the same as if the IP was an alternate account.
I haven't checked to see if there was any comparable language back then, but it shows the community has moved in that direction. I haven't participated in RFAs in a while, so I can't offer you advice on your other answers. Will Beback talk 07:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll try and take a look at the edit history of WP:SOCK and see if I find anything relevant there. Richwales (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- It appears the above statement in WP:SOCK was added here. The main discussion seems to have taken place here. Richwales (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, though I've heard that there was also some similar language earlier that was removed.
- I agree that your draft responses are probably too long, especially the answers to the "additional questions". Succinctness counts. I'm heading out on vacation, but if you send me an email I'll find a connection so I can add my !vote. Will Beback talk 21:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Re: Looking for feedback on a possible RfA bid (Richwales)
I added some thoughts in response to your query at my talk page.
RfA
Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010
- Sister projects: Picture of the Year results declared on Wikimedia Commons
- News and notes: Collaboration with the British Museum and in Serbia, Interaction with researchers, and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject U2
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Thanks
Thank you very much for signing up for the July Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two and a half years, all the way back to the beginning of 2008! We're really going to need all the help we can muster to get it down to a manageable number. We've ambitiously set a goal of clearing all of 2008 from the backlog this month. In order to do that, we're going to need more participants. Is there anyone that you can invite or ask to participate with you? If so, we're offering an award to the person who brings in the most referrals. Just notify ɳorɑfʈ Talk! or Diannaa TALK of who your referrals are. Once again, thanks for your support! --Diannaa TALK 20:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
East-West schism
Here is an article about the whole thing [10](it relates to all three articles, filioque, East-West schism, Catholic-Orthodox theological differences). Please if you could. Just read over the section about Neoplatonism. Thank you LoveMonkey (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've started reading this; it's clearly going to take a while to absorb it, and I think I should probably go ahead and read the whole thing in order to be sure I really understand what is going on. Richwales (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me as I am trying to grasp at things that are very cultural in a Greek and Russian way and say them in an English Western way. The metaphysics of Orthodox Christianity are called stochastics (this is a very poor way to say this please forgive me). Pagan metaphysics of the philosophers is called determinism, fatalism, destiny and or predestination. The best term of this metaphysic is necessitarianism. In that all can be reasoned and or rationalize and that one finds the truth through reason. The position of compatibilism was rejected with the monophysite movement in the East. What is uncreated can not be rationalized and what the Eastern forms of atheism, mysticism (nihilism) did was stated that if something can not be rationalized then it is an illusion or it does not exist (i.e. God, love, freedom etc. etc)
As against monophysitism Jesus Christ had and has free will his human will was not a show or act but was an actuality (energeia). It is not absorbed or lost in the infinity of his divine nature. The attempt to pagan metaphysics-up Orthodox Christianity (through political intrigue by the Pagan rulers and powers that where at the time of the initiation of the conflict). LoveMonkey (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I can see one big challenge in writing / editing this material is that the article (whether it be the East–West Schism page itself, or the History of the East–West Schism page if we do go ahead and merge everything there) needs to adequately explain both viewpoints, preferably from a neutral vantage point that treats both positions fairly but favours neither one. Do you know of any writers who have done a reasonable job of explaining both the Western and Eastern theological views, and the differences between them — understanding both sides, but without taking either side (and also without just summarily rejecting both sides)?
- It is also probably fair for the article to explain (at least in general terms) why each side of this schism rejects and/or misunderstands the other side. This is going to be hard to do, obviously, because apologists and polemicists on both sides of the divide have very firm ideas about why their position is obviously right and the other position is obviously wrong. If we can't find any source that is widely accepted by both West and East as dealing justly with both viewpoints, we may have no choice but to present the pro-Western and pro-Eastern positions (each one as fairly as possible), and then make sure that discussion of the various unsuccessful attempts at reconciliation documents the mutual inability / unwillingness to find common ground. Above all, though, the article has got to stay balanced — if the Orthodox have their reasons for believing the Catholics simply don't get it, then surely the Catholics have their reasons for believing the Orthodox simply don't get it, and we need to acknowledge both of these positions without introducing our own biases. Richwales (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
No. The best you've got there is David Bradshaw's Aristotle East and West. As I said on the article talkpage it is best to just post each perspective and for each one to leave the other alone.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding then surely the Catholics have their reasons for believing the Orthodox simply don't get it, and we need to acknowledge both of these positions without introducing our own biases. Both articles are out right LYING. Here is an article by the New Advent (just one) that calls the Orthodox clergy ignorant. Our saints (Palamas) as heretics teaching heresy. Our theology (based on hesychasm) as crude auto suggestion. This is just one article that is very easy to find. [11] It also implies that the Roman Catholic named the Orthodox Church and all kinds of rather nasty ugly things that we as Orthodox have experienced first hand. But to look in the articles here on Wikipedia the Roman Catholic are just preaches with the Orthodox and us Orthodox are just being big cry babies. They Esoglou just thinks we are crazy and cant figure out where all this animus is coming from and the Orthodox are just making stuff up and Esoglou knows better then all of these other sources. VERY FRUSTRATING.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I see you are taking your task very seriously. I wish you all the best. Unfortunately, I can suggest as balanced accounts only what you probably know of already:
- Henry Chadwick, East and West, the Making of a Rift in the Church (Oxford History of the Christian Church 2005)
- Laurent Cleenewerck, His Broken Body, Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches (Euclid University Press 2007/2009) - LoveMonkey found in this book some considerations that he liked and quoted.
- The Encyclopaedia Britannica article.
- Much of the two rather lengthy books are on Google books. Esoglou (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Re:Still having popup problems with secure server
Message added 18:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010
- Objectionable material: Board resolution on offensive content
- In the news: Wikipedia controlled by pedophiles, left-wing trolls, Islamofascists and Communist commandos?
- Public Policy Initiative: Introducing the Public Policy Initiative
- WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Ships
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Backlog Elimination Drive Has Begun
Hello, I just wanted to take a moment and announce that the July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive has started, and will run for a month. Thanks for signing up. There's a special prize for most edits on the first day, in case you've got high ambitions. Enjoy! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 04:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010
- Wikimania preview: Gearing up for Wikimania in Gdańsk
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Children's Literature
- Features and admins: This week's highlights
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
RFA Thank spam
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which failed with 10 support, 26 oppose, and 13 neutral. Your comments were much appreciated. |
--White Shadows There goes another day 16:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Reminder
Hi! This message is just a friendly reminder that you signed up to participate in the GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive. I noticed that you haven't logged a single copy edit yet. We'd love to see you participate! The drive runs three more weeks so there's still plenty of time to earn barnstars. Thanks! --Diannaa (Talk) 22:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm working on History of Bălţi. I have had limited time at the moment, and the article is requiring serious and careful work, but I am continuing. Richwales (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update! I am glad someone is willing to take on these trickier articles. :-)) --Diannaa (Talk) 23:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I just finished copyediting History of Bălţi. Did I do the closeout steps correctly? The word count I've put down (3,556) is what the article had before I started (it's currently at 3,650 words, but as far as I can tell from the instructions, you don't care about the post-edit word count, right?) Richwales (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's right; use the word count from before you start. And the record-keeping you did on the drive home page is also correct. Thanks. --Diannaa (Talk) 19:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I just finished copyediting History of Bălţi. Did I do the closeout steps correctly? The word count I've put down (3,556) is what the article had before I started (it's currently at 3,650 words, but as far as I can tell from the instructions, you don't care about the post-edit word count, right?) Richwales (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010
- UK COI edits: British politicians accused of WP cover-ups
- News and notes: Board changes, Wikimania, Public Policy Initiative
- Discussion report: Article ownership, WikiProjects vs. Manual of Style, Unverifiable village
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Apple Inc.
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
GOCE Newsletter
|
 Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! We have now passed the halfway point, so here's an update. Progress Report - Progress toward the targets has been good. 751 articles out of the approximately 1,600 we would like to get completed by the end of the month were done by July 15, so we will be very close to meeting the target for volume. However, we would like to clear all of the 2008 articles from the backlog, and there are still 892 left to do. Please consider choosing one of these older articles when looking for something to copy edit. If we focus our firepower we can completely wipe out 2008 from the queue. Participation Report - 95 people signed up for the July drive. This is a great result compared to May, when we had 36. However, in May only one person that signed up didn't do any copy edits, and in July only 59 of the 95 have posted any copy edits on the big board. The task may seem insurmountable but please remember that if all 95 participants copy edit just one article a day from now until the end of the month, we will eliminate 1,300 more articles from the backlog. So please consider participating at whatever level you can! All contributions are appreciated. This newsletter was prepared for the GOCE by Diannaa (Talk), S Masters (talk), and The Raptor Let's talk. |
—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Utahraptor (talk • contribs) 18:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010
- News and notes: Politician defends editing own article, Google translation, Row about a small Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: Up close with WikiProject Animals
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: ArbCom to appoint CU/OS positions after dumping election results
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010
- News and notes: New interwiki project improves biographies, and other news
- In the news: Wikipedia leads in customer satisfaction, Google Translate and India, Citizendium transition, Jimbo's media accolade
- WikiProject report: These Are the Voyages of WikiProject Star Trek
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Discussion report: Controversial e-mail proposal, Invalid AfD
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Illegal immigration to the United States
Thanks for correcting the date on my post. I had only slept a few hours and thought I was still in April lol . I really have started editing some stuff, but have not much experience doing it. Anyway, thanks.CyberEditor (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Editor review
Hallo. I've reviewed you; apologies for the wait. If you've any comments, feel free to ask me at my talk page or the review page. Cheers, C628 (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up
| Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks to all who participated in the drive! Over 100 editors—including Jimbo Wales—signed up this time (nearly triple the participants of the May drive). This benefited the Guild as well as the articles in need of copy editing. You can see from the comparison graphs that we increased the number of completed copyedits substantially. Unfortunately, we were not able to meet our goal of completely wiping out 2008 from the queue. We also were not able to reduce the backlog to less than 6,000 articles. We suspect people were busy with real life summertime things, at least in the northern hemisphere! We were able to remove the months of January, February, March, April, and May from the backlog, and we almost wiped out the month of June. We reduced the backlog by 1,289 articles (17%), so all in all it was a very successful drive, and we will be holding another event soon. We'll come up with some new ideas to try to keep things fresh and interesting. Keep up the good work, everybody!
Coordinator: ɳorɑfʈ Talk! Co-coordinators: Diannaa TALK and S Masters (talk) | Newsletter by: The Raptor You rang?/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions |
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 18:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC).
The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010
- News and notes: Canadian political edits, Swedish royal wedding, Italian "right of reply" bill, Chapter reports
- In the news: Gardner and Sanger on why people edit Wikipedia, Fancy and frugal reading devices, Medical article assessed
- WikiProject report: Always Expanding: WikiProject Images and Media
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution
The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010
- News and notes: FBI requests takedown of seal, Public Policy advisors and ambassadors, Cary Bass leaving, new Research Committee
- In the news: Wikinews interviews Umberto Eco, and more
- Sister projects: Strategic Planning update
- WikiProject report: Chocks away for WikiProject Aviation
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 16 August 2010
- WikiProject report: A Pit Stop with WikiProject NASCAR
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: ArbCom releases names of CU/OS applicants after delay
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Birthright citizenship
Regarding this edit, I would have preferred more delicateness on your part. When removing material that contains references, one should satisfy a higher standard than disparaging them as "speculation." I'm not saying the article is perfect—it's quite bad actually—but when people endeavor to cite sources, even in the process of creating low quality content, they are entitled to more respect as the content is reworked. Savidan 02:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- As a general rule, I would agree with you. In this particular situation, however, it seemed (and still seems) clear to me that the material in question simply doesn't belong in the subsection about the Wong Kim Ark case. And if the text doesn't belong there, neither do the references. It may be possible (and appropriate) to rework some of the deleted material (including some, or maybe all, of the references) into the "Current controversy" section, as long as the material fits and is properly represented so as to promote NPOV and the related tenets. And I suppose it might have been better to do that bit of reworking at the same time as I took the text out of the Wong Kim Ark subsection. I'll try to spend some time doing this very thing in the next day or two, provided someone else doesn't beat me to it. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 05:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- And for the record, I did add a reworked version of much of the material in question back into the article; see this edit. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
GOCE Invitation
 |
There are currently 2,621 articles in the backlog. You can help us! Join the September 2010 drive today! |
The Guild of Copy-Editors – September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invite you to participate in the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 September at 23:59 (UTC). The goals for this drive are to eliminate 2008 from the queue and to reduce the backlog to fewer than 5,000 articles. Sign-up has already begun at the September drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page. Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Awards and barnstars Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive! |
—Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardsBot (talk • contribs) 01:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Request for advice
Some weeks ago you made an attempt to help at Catholic-Eastern Orthodox theological differences. Would you please advise on how to handle the problem here. Should I just let LoveMonkey have his way? Perhaps it is best. In a very similar case I tried the Third Opinion method with regard to a precise question, but the administrator editor who responded expressed no opinion on the question and instead tried unsuccessfully to arbitrate; and Requests for Comment seem to draw very few and insufficiently persistent commentators for reaching any conclusion in a dispute with this editor. Esoglou (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm. There does appear to be something dysfunctional going on there. Let me take a really good look at that material and think about it for a while. Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. No hurry. Esoglou (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 August 2010
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Cryptozoology
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision of climate change case posted
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Katrina Swett
Well, it was late at night. ;-) Obviously I was cut and pasting from the other candidate, and then changing the data (which I clearly remember doing). Sometimes I hit some key (my SmartMouse!) and the page reverts to a previous 'Preview' version. I generally re-check the data, but obviously this time I missed it. Thanks for letting me know though, because hacking is always a possibility. It's also reassuring to know someone caught it quickly! Flatterworld (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 August 2010
- In the news: Agatha Christie spoiled, Wales on Wikileaks, University students improve Wikipedia, and more
- WikiProject report: Studying WikiProject Universities
- Features and admins: Featured article milestone: 3,000
- Arbitration report: What does the Race and intelligence case tell us?
The Signpost: 6 September 2010
- Book review: Cognitive Surplus, by Clay Shirky
- WikiProject report: Putting articles in their place: the Uncategorized Task Force
- Features and admins: Bumper crop of admins; Obama featured portal marks our 150th
- Arbitration report: Interim desysopping, CU/OS appointments, and more
- Technology report: Development transparency, resource loading, GSoC: extension management
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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 September 2010
- News and notes: Page-edit stats, French National Library partnership, Mass page blanking, Jimbo on Pending changes
- Public Policy Initiative: Experiments with article assessment
- Sister projects: Biography bloopers – update on the Death Anomalies collaboration
- WikiProject report: Getting the picture – an interview with the Graphic lab
- Features and admins: "Magnificent" warthog not so cute, says featured picture judge
- Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 20 September 2010
- From the editor: New ways to read and share the Signpost
- News and notes: Dutch National Archives donation, French photo raid, brief notes
- In the news: Rush Limbaugh falls for Wikipedia hoax, Public Policy Initiative, Nature cites Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: All Aboard WikiProject Trains
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Dispatches: Tools, part 2: Internal links and page histories
- Arbitration report: Discretionary sanctions clarification and more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 27 September 2010
- News and notes: French million, controversial content, Citizendium charter, Pending changes, and more
- WikiProject report: Designing WikiProject Architecture
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: EEML amendment requests & more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 4 October 2010
- WikiProject report: Hot topics with WikiProject Volcanoes
- Features and admins: Milestone: 2,500th featured picture
- Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution
- Technology report: Code reviewers, October Engineering update, 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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 October 2010
- News and notes: Board resolutions, fundraiser challenge, traffic report, ten thousand good articles, and more
- In the news: Free culture conference, "The Register" retracts accusations, students blog about Wikipedia, and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Smithsonian Institution
- Features and admins: Big week for ships and music
- Dispatches: Tools, part 3: Style tools and wikEd
- Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 18 October 2010
- News and notes: Wikipedia fundraiser event, Frankfurt book fair, news in brief
- WikiProject report: Show Me the Money: WikiProject Numismatics
- Features and admins: A week for marine creatures
- Dispatches: Common issues seen in Peer review
- Arbitration report: Climate change case closes after 4 months
- Technology report: Video subtitling tool, staff vs. volunteer developers, brief news
GREAT schism map
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Great_Schism_1054_with_former_borders.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Great_Schism_1054_with_former_borders.png
Can you help to create a schism map. The political borders are correct (we used a lot of history map to construct the borders) However, the map represents the state religions. White areas are not catholic and not orthodox areas, or there aren't church infrastructure with church hierarchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.153.53 (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
November copy edit drive
| Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive!
The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invites you to participate in the November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 November at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 November at 23:59 (UTC). The goal for this drive is to reduce the backlog by 10% (approximately 500 articles). We hope to focus our efforts on the oldest three months (January, February, and March 2009) and the newest three months (September, October, and November 2010) of articles in the queue. Sign-up has already begun at the November drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page. Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants, some of which are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive! |
— Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
November copy edit drive
| Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive!
The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invites you to participate in the November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 November at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 November at 23:59 (UTC). The goal for this drive is to reduce the backlog by 10% (approximately 500 articles). We hope to focus our efforts on the oldest three months (January, February, and March 2009) and the newest three months (September, October, and November 2010) of articles in the queue. Sign-up has already begun at the November drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page. Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants, some of which are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive! |
— Preceding undated comment added 12:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 October 2010
- News and notes: Mike Godwin leaves the Foundation, ArbCom election announced
- In the news: Good faith vs. bad faith, climate change, court citations, weirdest medieval fact, brief news
- WikiProject report: Nightmare on Wiki Street: WikiProject Horror
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- ArbCom interview: So what is being an arbitrator actually like?
- Arbitration report: Case closes within 1 month
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 1 November 2010
- In the news: Airplane construction with Wikipedia, lessons from the strategy project, logic over rhetoric
- WikiProject report: Scoring with WikiProject Ice Hockey
- Features and admins: Good-lookin' slugs and snails
- Arbitration report: Arb resignation during plagiarism discussion; election RfC closing in 2 days
- Technology report: Foundation office switches to closed source, secure browsing, brief news
The Signpost: 8 November 2010
- News and notes: Second Wikipedian in Residence, {{citation needed}} for sanity
- WikiProject report: WikiProject California
- Features and admins: No, not science fiction—real science
- Election report: The countdown begins
- Arbitration report: No cases this week; Date delinking sanctions reduced for one party; History ban extended
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational 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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive!
We have reached the midway point in our backlog elimination drive, so here is an update. Participation report — The November drive has 53 participants at this point. We had 77 participants in the September drive. In July, 95 people signed up for the drive, and in May we had 36. If you are not participating, it is not too late to join! Progress report — The drive is quite successful so far, as we have already almost reached our target of a 10% reduction in the number of articles in the backlog. We are doing very well at keeping our Requests page clear, as those articles count double for word count for this drive. Please keep in mind the possibility of removing other tags when you are finished with an article. If the article no longer needs {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, or other similar maintenance tags, please remove them, as this will make the tasks of other WikiProjects easier to complete. Thanks very much for participating in the Drive, and see you at the finish line!
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor (talk) at 16:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC).
The Signpost: 15 November 2010
- News and notes: Fundraisers start for Wikipedia and Citizendium; controversial content and leadership
- WikiProject report: Sizzling: WikiProject Bacon
- Features and admins: Of lakes and mountains
- Dispatches: A guide to the Good Article Review Process
- Arbitration report: No cases this week; Amendments filed on Climate Change and Date Delinking; Motion passed on EEML
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 22 November 2010
- News and notes: No further Bundesarchiv image donations; Dutch and German awards; anniversary preparations
- Book review: The Myth of the Britannica, by Harvey Einbinder
- WikiProject report: WikiProject College Football
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Election report: Candidates still stepping forward
- Arbitration report: Brews ohare site-banned; climate change topic-ban broadened
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
ITN for Katyn massacre
 | On 26 November 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Katyn massacre, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 November 2010
- In the news: Fundraising banners continue to provoke; plagiarism charges against congressional climate change report
- WikiProject report: Celebrate WikiProject Holidays
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Election report: Voting in full swing
- Arbitration report: New case: Longevity; Biophys topic ban likely to stay in place
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 6 December 2010
- News and notes: ArbCom tally pending; Pediapress renderer; fundraiser update; unreferenced BLP drive
- WikiLeaks: Repercussions of the WikiLeaks cable leak
- WikiProject report: Talking copyright with WikiProject Copyright Cleanup
- Features and admins: Birds and insects
- Arbitration report: New case: World War II
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
GOCE elections
Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors
 Elections are currently underway for our inaugural Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, Friday 1 December – 23:59 UTC, Tuesday 14 December. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are six candidates vying for four positions. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! Cast your vote today. |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
FYROM
Hello,
Concerning your message:
I reverted the changes you made to the Poppy article, relating to the name of the (former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia. It is Wikipedia policy that the names "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or "FYROM" are not to be used as official names for this country; see WP:ARBMAC2 (a ruling by the Arbitration Committee) and WP:MOSMAC2. Additionally, references to the Republic of Macedonia in any Wikipedia article are subject to probation and sanctions; see WP:GS. Repeated or flagrant violations of this policy may (and, indeed, is likely to) lead to bans or blocks. Please be more careful in the future. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Please forgive me, as I made these changes with the assumption that Wikipedia was interested in maintaining a modicum of integrity as it pertains to respecting historical accuracy, international law and UN directives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.170.135 (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion
| Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive!
We have reached the end of our fourth backlog elimination drive. Thanks to all who participated. Stats
Barnstars If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you participated in the September 2010 backlog elimination drive, you may have earned roll-over words (more details can be found here). These roll-over words count as credit towards earning barnstars, except for leaderboard awards. We will be delivering these barnstars within the next couple of weeks. Our next drive is scheduled for January 2011. In the meantime, please consider helping out at the Wikification drive or any of the other places where help with backlogs is needed. Thank you for participating in the last 2010 backlog elimination drive! We look forward to seeing you in January! Your drive coordinators –The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa (Talk) |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 23:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC).
RFA nom
| Will Beback would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Will Beback to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Richwales. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. |
- PS: I'm still drafting the nominating statement. I hope you'll accept. If so, you might fill in your parts and once it's complete I can transclude it. Will Beback talk 23:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've filled in my parts. If possible, I would prefer to do the transclusion step myself. But if you really feel you should do that, then please let me have one more chance to proofread after you're done and before you transclude. Richwales (talk · contribs) 00:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations
For the context of this message, please see the question in your RfA from Mkativerata.
Hey there - congratulations on your RfA. I'm really glad I supported it; you'll make for an excellent admin. Given that you're probably looking for a chance to try out your shiny new tools, would you consider full-protecting this page? I'd do it myself but I'm probably "involved"; a new editor is trying to insert all kinds of prejudicial material to the article sourced to dodgy blogs and I need a bit of breathing space to explain to him why the content isn't acceptable. Cheers - --Mkativerata (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for writing me. Yes, I agree that there is a problem here — but both of you are contributing to the problem — and although KMalaysia (talk · contribs) can perhaps be excused as a new editor who doesn't know the ropes yet, you are an admin and should know better.
- I'm going to give KMalaysia a {{uw-editwar}} warning advising him/her that unless s/he stops edit-warring immediately, s/he will be blocked for 24 hours to force him/her to stop. S/he has already violated WP:EW and WP:3RR, but since s/he is a new editor and is not obviously trying to commit vandalism, s/he deserves at least one warning before getting blocked. I will direct him/her to WP:RS and explain that blogs are not acceptable sources (with narrow exceptions that simply don't apply here). I'll suggest that s/he should look for reports about the subject in mainstream foreign media (which may conceivably stand a better chance of being free of Malaysian government control than the country's domestic media outlets). Assuming s/he finds such sources, s/he needs to report that the sources say such-and-so, because baldly asserting (as the voice of Wikipedia) that the PCM party claims to be independent but is really a government front violates WP:NPOV. And I'll also caution him/her that accusing another editor of having ulterior motives and a conflict of interest as an agent of the Malaysian government violates WP:NPA, and that such comments in edit summaries absolutely must stop now. Rest assured that I'll be watching this page, and if KMalaysia continues his/her current misbehaviour after having been warned, s/he will be blocked from editing (first for 24 hours, with longer blocks if necessary to make the point and stop him/her from disruptive editing).
- As for you, the first use of my shiny new tools will involve giving you a 24-hour block right now. As an administrator, you already know better than to engage in this sort of blatant edit-warring and 3RR violation, and you (and I) are supposed to be held to a higher standard. As a heavily involved administrator, you had no business reverting KMalaysia's WP:RPP request on this article, so I'm going to reinstate that request (and immediately decline it in the proper manner, because full-protection is not the appropriate remedy for dealing with an edit war between two autoconfirmed users). If KMalaysia doesn't get the point and persists in his/her current pattern of editing, I would strongly recommend that you let me (or other uninvolved admins) take care of the problem, rather than continue to fight this battle singlehandedly and risk further sanctions on yourself. I would also suggest that you try to get more editors involved with the article in question — possibly by asking the participants at WP:WikiProject Malaysia — in hopes of forming a larger, neutral group of people who can reach meaningful consensus on what directions the page should take.
- I assume this is probably not the sort of response you were hoping or expecting to get, and I want to encourage you not to take it as a punitive measure or a personal attack, but instead spend the next 24 hours thinking about how you can best improve this and other Wikipedia articles. You might want to consider spending some of your mini-wikibreak searching the web for the kind of reliable, citable sources regarding the PCM which KMalaysia may not currently understand how to find. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
It has been suggested to me that my caption of Off with his head in your RFA is improper. In case this isn't clear, please understand that this is a joking reference to the article Decapitation, which you have edited, and to the Red Queen, who was a great enthusiast for this. No personal insult is meant by this - I was just trying to lighten the discussion and make it more entertaining. We have not interacted before, IIRC. How do you take this and the substantive criticisms which followed? Colonel Warden (talk) 09:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Your RfA has been closed as unsuccessful
I regret to inform you that your Request for adminship has been closed as unsuccessful. However, there were many comments made there which may help you should you choose to seek adminship in the future. I strongly recommend reviewing carefully all of the comments made there and using them in a constructive manner to improve yourself and increase your chances of passing any future request. If you have any questions, please let me know. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 22:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
A personal question
Hey Rich, how's it going? May I ask you a question of a mild personal nature - only to satiate my curiosity? You have a userbox that says you no longer speak (your native) American English fluently. The logical presumption is that this is due to "becoming fluent" in Canadian English, correct? Considering that Canadian and American English are so incredibly similar, what do you mean by this? Has your accent changed? Have you intentionally abandoned your American dialect in favor of a Canadian one? Do you just speak favoring the Canadian versions of words (in the instances where differences exist)? I saw your userpage and my curiosity was peaked. I suppose I could understand if the case was British English, for example, but I'd always thought of (spoken) Canadian English to be virtually the same as American English (regional dialects notwithstanding). Like I said: just curious! Swarm X 06:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Good question. Basically, I lived in Canada (Kitchener, Ontario) for several years — my wife and I immigrated there and eventually became citizens (i.e., we have dual citizenship). Since we had planned to stay, I put forth an intensive effort to adopt the local speech as thoroughly as possible — pronunciation, vocabulary, the whole nine yards. The average adult would have an extremely hard time doing this, but my aptitude for languages apparently made it easier. By the time extended family issues led us to move back to California, I found that some of my co-workers (ones who didn't know me intimately) had tacitly assumed I was a born-and-bred local and had had no idea at all that I was from the US ("You're going back to the States??").
- After we came back to California, it quickly became clear to me that I had "lost" my native accent so thoroughly that I couldn't readily get it back. Although I could presumably have managed (or still could manage) to reacquire general American speech through an intensive effort (comparable to what I had gone through earlier going the other direction), it just wasn't important enough to me to do it, so I never have. Hence the comments on my user page.
- There actually are significant differences between "general American" speech and that of most Canadians. Many of the pronunciation issues are subtle enough that an untrained listener wouldn't notice them, but they are definitely there — given enough time, I can usually identify a Canadian by their speech (many Canadian actors on US TV shows, for example, do a very good job of sounding like an American character, but there are usually some tiny leftover features which slip through, and I tend to notice these instantly). And there are also some vocabulary differences, and even a handful of grammatical differences.
- The main reason I put the userboxes on my page was to alert other editors to my mixed background, and also to make it clear why this American is using British spellings (actually, Canadian spellings — a compromise of sorts between US and British). I can write "American" if I need to, but I have to concentrate on what I'm doing; it doesn't "come naturally" any more, the way it did when I was younger. Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Amazing. I would never have thought that in conditioning yourself to fully adapt to a new dialect, you could lose proficiency in your native one. In the same manner that ESL speakers still naturally know their native language (I presume they do, but that's a different topic), one would think that a native dialect would always come naturally. Very interesting. Thanks a lot for the explanation. Swarm X 03:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Probably the fact that the two dialects are similar has something to do with it. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Look Rickardwales I am the American and owner of www.moldovawinetours so I didn't quot outside sources
Look I am the American that wrote about my tourism business in Moldova under the site www.moldovawinetours.com So I did not quote outside sources at all . The current tourism business's are all run by Russia Mafia in Moldova and scam almost every foreigner one way or another. I live in Chisinau Moldova since 2003 so know the country well and have a license from the government of Moldova to operate 7 business's . One other Moldovan business I operate is wine importing under the name www.moldovatraders.com which is also run from Portland Oregon and Chisinau Moldova just like the tourism business. So my information is correct and current about Moldova unlike you posting crime in wide spread, what a joke ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moldovatraders (talk • contribs) 03:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Even if you were advertising your own business, the links you added still violated Wikipedia's spam policy (see WP:LINKSPAM). If existing links in these articles are also "link spam", then they should be removed too, but that doesn't excuse your adding links to your own businesses in their place. Additionally, an account name (such as yours) which is the same as the name of a company (your own company!) is a violation of Wikipedia's user name policy (see WP:CORPNAME) and is subject to immediate, indefinite blocking. If I had not removed these links and reported your account name for the above reasons, someone else would have done so. And I assure you that I am not in cahoots with any Moldovan organized crime rings — it sounded to me like you were accusing me of being allied with the "Russian mafia in Moldova", which is most definitely not true — but I'll overlook this apparent violation of Wikipedia's "no personal attacks" policy (see WP:NPA) as long as you're careful not to do it any more in the future. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads-up, I've tagged the above image as possibly being non-free. There's a link to the discussion from the image page. With respect - Kelly hi! 03:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I've posted a comment. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Vance v. Terrazas
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Vance v. Terrazas you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 5 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Cheers!, Lord Roem (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. This batch of three law articles (Vance v. Terrazas, Afroyim v. Rusk, and United States v. Wong Kim Ark) are my first GA submissions ever; hopefully I'm not too terribly far off course. Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Upon first glance, it doesn't meet any of the quick-fail criteria, so you are good so far. :-) - As I review this, if there are issues that arise, I can simply put it on hold and it can be improved without losing a chance to be 'GAed'. Cheers! Lord Roem (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The article Vance v. Terrazas you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Vance v. Terrazas for things which need to be addressed. Lord Roem (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The article Vance v. Terrazas you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Vance v. Terrazas for eventual comments about the article. Well done! -- Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping me clean up this article. Richwales (talk · contribs) 22:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
GOCE Year-end Report
Season's Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors
 We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2010. Read all about these in the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report.
Get your copy of the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report here
On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. See you in 2011!
– Your Coordinators: S Masters (lead), Diannaa, The Utahraptor, and Tea with toast. |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
FA
Maybe discuss the implications of the decision. What does it mean? How has it impacted people? Can you find essays about its importance? That probably would improve the quality of the article a great deal. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)