Wikipedia

User talk:Samwalton9/Archive 8

< User talk:Samwalton9
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Fimatic in topic Your request for adminship
Learn more about this page

October - November 2014

WikiCup 2014 September newsletter

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer   Godot13 (submissions) has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion   Cwmhiraeth (submissions) is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel.   Casliber (submissions), who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sam, sign up! We have a shortage of Sams at the moment! :P DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 02:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Haha I'll see. Just started my final university year so I probably don't have time unfortunately. Sam Walton (talk) 08:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Books and Bytes - Issue 8

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 8, August-September2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • TWL now a Wikimedia Foundation program, moves on from grant status
  • Four new donations, including large DeGruyter parntership, pilot with Elsevier
  • New TWL coordinators, Wikimania news, new library platform discussions, Wiki Loves Libraries update, and more
  • Spotlight: "Traveling Through History" - an editor talks about his experiences with a TWL newspaper archive, Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter



MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please comment on Talk:Metacompiler

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Metacompiler. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Comment Revert

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry about reverting your comment in this edit. The side banner was showing up as squished for only the Teahouse, and I wasn't sure if it was a technical reason or whatnot. I'm still not sure exactly what caused it (or if it was just me), but I've reverted my revert. Regards. KJ Discuss? 14:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

No worries, thanks for letting me know. Sam Walton (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please comment on Talk:Climate change denial

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Climate change denial. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WikiCup 2014: The results

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
 
 

The 2014 WikiCup champion is   Godot13 (submissions), who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents.   Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles.   Casliber (submissions), WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.

A full list of our prize-winners follows:

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)

edit

Hello Wikimedians!

 
The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

  • DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
  • Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
  • British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
  • Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
  • Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
  • JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion


Latest revert

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I cannot find the consensus decision. Can you link me to it. Joe6Pack (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Joe6Pack, sorry, the discussion was unluckily archived shortly after I posted that message on your wall. You can find the discussion here. Sam Walton (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

So how do I know there actually was a decision? Joe6Pack (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Unless a discussion is a formal one there often isn't an official decision, we just have to use common sense to decide what a discussion's consensus is. In this case I hope you would agree that the general opinion is against using this particular review. Sam Walton (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
I feel it is pretty mixed. I will hold off for the time being.Joe6Pack (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Matt Taylor (scientist)

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

No prob. I actually should've checked to see if anyone had a draft of some sort beforehand. Scarce2 (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

UoL

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Sam RE: UoL harmful content on Wikipedia removed ( re: old strike action etc) and now inserted back by yourself.

1 Iam not and i have been an employee of the UoL. 2 The dispute as you has been resolved thus the content remaining on Wikipedia is historic, but may be harmful to the University at present and in future and thus must be removed

I am sure you will understand, thus please allow edit . Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xara245 (talk • contribs) 16 November 2014

Hi Xara. Firstly, that's fine then, I was just letting you know in case you were. Second, indeed the dispute has been resolved and the content is historic, but it's in a section of the article called 'history' and thus seems to be in the right place. Wikipedia isn't concerned over what content is or isn't harmful to a subject, we cover all sorts of negative coverage here, and to do otherwise would be to violate the policy on Neutral Point of View. Hope that clarifies things, Sam Walton (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Cartwheel hat

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for your help with this, but it wasn't ready to be moved into mainspace – it was still in my sandbox, which means I was working on it. Libby norman (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Libby norman. Actually, you created it directly into mainspace, I didn't move its location. In fact your sandbox appears to currently be empty. Sorry for any confusion I caused by editing the article, but honestly it looks quite good already and you can continue to expand it in mainspace :) Sam Walton (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Libby norman, if you would like the article moved back to your userspace then that is doable, but your last moved moved it to the user page of an unregistered user called Cartwheel hat! I've moved it back and requested the redirect that was created as a result of my moving the article back be deleted. The article is once again in article space. Would you like me to move it to a subpage of yours so you can continue working on it? Sam Walton (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
I still have a version [1] that I would like to keep working on. I am not ready to launch. I can happily move it across to my main sandbox and put a note across the top. Can you delete the version on mainspace please. Libby norman (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Ok Libby, I'll move the page directly to a subpage of your user page (specifically, here: User:Libby norman/Cartwheel hat) for you to continue working on until you're happy with it :) Sam Walton (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
I see you copied it over yourself, that's no problem. To have the main article deleted, just add {{Db-g7}} to the top of Cartwheel hat! Sam Walton (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I am a bit anal about my pages and don't move them until I'm very sure. I normally work in sandbox but recently started creating additional sandboxes from my user page (I thought this was how it was done as I followed some instructions!) where I work on articles and collect notes. Haven't encountered problems before, but do I need to put another banner on the top or add something to the name to avoid similar confusion? Many thanks for your help. Libby norman (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Don't worry! It's quite easy to get confused about where you've ended up on Wikipedia sometimes. I wouldn't worry about your 'please don't move' messages - no one is likely to move your subpages into article space, it's bad etiquette to do so as subpages are considered a user's own pages. As for making new sandboxes, the easiest way is just to start your articles in the same way you did for User:Libby norman/hat box, that is just as a subpage of your user page. You can go direct to such a page by typing User:Libby norman/YOURPAGETITLEHERE into the search bar and hitting enter - it will tell you the page doesnt exist but you can start it. If the page you start editing starts with 'User:Libby norman/' then you're in the right place (your subpage area); if it just has the title, as Cartwheel hat would have when you wrote it, then you're in article (main) space :) Hope I've explained that clearly, Sam Walton (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

HealthDay

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The correct tag for these is {{db-g4}} whenever you find them. Cheers! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi FreeRangeFrog, I was going to G4 it but the criteria reads that the article must be 'A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy' and additionally excludes articles for which 'the reason for the deletion no longer applies'. Having looked at the AfD I wasn't confident in either of these due to not being able to see the previous article and all the deletion reasons given in the AfD being that the article was overly promotional, which the new article wasn't. As such I thought PROD might be the best route in order to give any reliable sources (which weren't confirmed not to exist in the AfD) more chance to be added. Should G4 still have applied in this circumstance? Sam Walton (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
There was functionally no difference between the two versions, however even if you can't see the previous version, a G4 is applicable either way because that calls attention to it more quickly. It's then up to the reviewing admin to decline the speedy. Think of it as a faster PROD that can't be removed by the creator   The only time when a G4 should (possibly) be avoided is when a long time has passed since the last AFD. Either way, just tag it and let the admin worry about it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

4RR

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Matt Taylor, you're at 4 atm. Tutelary (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Tutelary: Oh dear, thanks for the reminder. I'd argue that the last edit was just reinstating some sourced content removed as part of a debate about something else (I didn't fully revert), but that's by the by, I'll leave the article alone for now. Sam Walton (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
No, please continue editing. I was just about to leave my thoughts. On pages like these, it's better to have more people participating and if we were to lose you it's be rather bad. A single editor in a bad situation can make a whole lot of difference. I also didn't leave you the 4RR note to report you, just to let you know so you don't implicate yourself to 5 or 6. Tutelary (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well I'm not editing it for a bit because I need to sleep, but don't plan to continue adding the shirt info in until a consensus for its inclusion or removal is reached on the talk page. Thanks again, Sam Walton (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Samwalton9. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).Reply

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

User:SamWalton

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As you sign your name Sam Walton, you might wish to change your user name to User:SamWalton which is currently unclaimed. See Wikipedia:Changing username for advice, and go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple if you wish to carry it out. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the suggestion, I considered this recently actually but thought it might be best to leave it until after my RfA. I'll perhaps do so then. Sam Walton (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dota 2 article

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Sam,

Congratulations on being nominated for adminship- I sincerely wish you all the best with this endeavor! That being said, you may as well know that I'm going to be retiring from Wikipedia for the foreseeable future, as I must concentrate on my career and I have found that I do not have the attention span to give meticulous attention to mainspace articles. As you have been quite prominent with the development of the Dota 2 article, I was wondering if you would like to take the reigns from me as the lead editor for the article. My wish would be for whoever does this, (hopefully you), to take the article to FA status in the near future, as it is quite ready. I wish I could have done this myself, but things are simply not working out for me to have the time to contribute like I used to. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 00:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks! I did see that yeah, and as much as I'd love to say that I could lead the article on to FA, I'm in my final year of university and have a huge workload at the moment. As such I don't really have the time to put a lot of work into articles right now; Proteus has been sat on the verge of FA for a while now too! I do hope there's someone else willing to push Dota 2 that little that it needs though :) Sam Walton (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Show your good character

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Secret nominated you. He then removed my vote and immediately blocked me. That is a really big conflict of interest. If you are a man of fairness and against corruption, you should state that you do not agree with conflict of interest behaviour, such as this.

Even if there was reason to remove a vote or block, it should have been done by someone else, not a person nominating you.

You have a chance to shine and show good character by commenting on conflicts of interests and condemning it. I will leave it to you to whether you want to do that or not do anything at all.

In real life, there have people who have been murdered while others did nothing. I am aware of this tendency so I try not to be like that.

Good luck as an admininstrator. I hope you will be a good administrator! There are some good ones but also some bad ones. Some bad ones don't rise to the level of murder but that doesn't excuse their misdeeds. Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be appropriate to note that Secret is NOT one of noms in that RfA. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Q16 - the answers

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've got to pop out in a mo, but when I'm back at the computer I think it's a near certainly you will be an admin and have the mop, so I'll give you a pre-emptive "well done" and tell you what my answers were to Q16 on your RfA. I didn't really ask them because I had concerns myself, but hoped it would help people who saw the (now redacted) oppose votes and make their minds up. Anyway, I agree with all of your answers but just to expand on what I specifically had in mind:

  • xxxCoolGirl1234xxx - the interesting thing about this is that "xxx" can be interpreted as "kisses" or "pornography" depending on context, and while I think your answer of AGF is good, I have seen bots pop entries that start and end with multiple xs onto the queue at WP:UAA. I expect a couple of edits from the account would easily determine things one way or another.
  • douglascarswell - not just a real person, but one that has been involved in mild controversy (as I found out when expanding Jaywick) and whose article has seen quite a bit of reverting, though not enough to give it high attention on the noticeboards. I don't imagine Carswell himself to edit Wikipedia under his own name, the press would crucify him and Wikipedia if he did that, but I thought it was not beyond the bounds of possibility for somebody to troll Wikipedia on his article using his name. Even if they didn't actually edit Carswell's article, I could suspect them of being a troublemaker and suggest they pick a new name.
  • BringersOfDarkness - I like your rationale, what you probably didn't notice is that "Bringers Of Darkness" is the joke band listed as an example of WP:GARAGE and I picked this example specifically as a user whose sole purpose on Wikipedia would be to write an article about their band (which would be highly likely to get speedy deleted within 24 hours of creation). A message should do, once their band article has been and gone I suspect they'll lose interest. For a real life example, see User talk:Mandrake's Monster - note that I would not block the user and leave them a huge template as was done there, I like your answer better!

Anyway, just thought you'd be interested in that lot. Hope the RfA goes well and your use of the mop is a productive one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! It's going to irk me if I don't get that last support vote to make it a round 100 though ;)
Thanks for clarifying your answers, I actually did notice that Bringers of Darkness was the WP:GARAGE example but wasn't certain what you were implying! Cheers, Sam Walton (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Congrats!

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Congrats for passing your RFA with 100%! Jianhui67 T★C 16:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your request for adminship

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments11 people in discussion
 

Hi Samwalton9, I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Congratulations on the success, for your place on WP:RFX100 and for not receiving any opposition. As always, the administrators' reading list is worth a read and the new admin school is most certainly available if you feel that you might require some practice with the tools in a safe environment prior to applying them elsewhere. All being said and done, good luck with your adminship! Acalamari 16:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well done! Welcome to mopland.  Philg88 ♦talk 16:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Congratulations! And your T-shirt is delivered! ;) --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Congrats!!! --j⚛e deckertalk 16:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Congratulations!   —Biblioworm 17:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
...Don't block me, I'm innocent! (In all seriousness though, congrats, definitely deserved). StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

SPA

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The user who created the page seems to be a sockpuppet. Check the SPI I made: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Niceaustralianguy Tutelary (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I was suspicious and just looking into behavioural evidence also. Sam Walton (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

response to Samwalton re inability to log in

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

When I tried to log in I was told my password was incorrect. I requested a new password. I received an email with a new temporary password which I copied. I tried to log in with the new password which I pasted into the password slot. I was told that this password was also incorrect. I repeated the entire procedure with the same results. Three hours later I made another attempt with the original password not either of those sent via the email and somehow then it worked.

I apologize for using this space to respond to your question. I couldn't find a way to put it at the bottom of a list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janvermont (talk • contribs) 18:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Glad you managed to get logged in eventually, and no worries, I've moved it to the bottom now! :) Sam Walton (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Samwalton9/Archive_8&oldid=1143285962"