Wikipedia

User talk:Unionhawk/Archives/2009/November

< User talk:Unionhawk
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Bwrs in topic nyctohylophobia


Fort Hood Massacre

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear user, the name of the article is Fort Hood Massacre. Please see other examples:

Thanks! --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sebwhite's RFA

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sorry if it seemed like I was being pointy, I wish I could have better explained my gut concern there. Oh well, no big deal I suppose. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A question for you...

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See discussion at User:MacMed/RFA note.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 23:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Stewardship

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I see that they also can desysopp any administrator, and have any other privileges related to the ArbCom. Do you think that there is a place anywhere on Wikipedia which provides the requests for stewardship?----Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten 03:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You would do this at meta, but, stewardship is an elected position. I don't know when the next stewardship elections are. See meta:Stewards/Elections. Unless you have a bunch of contributions on a unified account, I don't exactly see you as a stewardship candidate...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 12:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Barnstar

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  The Anti-Flame Barnstar
For remaining cool headed, sensible and reasonable in heated disputes. You have what it takes to one day be an administrator in my opinion. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


Seconded. Let me know when it's up for a !vote. (I usually don't follow those RfAs.) - Hordaland (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Expert request sorting

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I saw your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject Expert Request Sorting. Sometimes, the expert specified in the {{expert-subject}} and {{article issues}} templates refers to an existing WikiProject, but the category for articles needing attention from that WikiProject has not been created. Do you think it's a good idea to change the templates so they put such articles into a separate category? Specific categories can then be created, and the articles will then move into those by themselves. I'm not sure how many articles this could include, but I ask anyway. Iceblock (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and create them. Definitely add {{hiddencat}} to the category, so that the category is not shown on its member pages, as well as including it in Category:Articles needing expert attention. There's no real format for the expert sorting categories.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 03:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking about pages that are already tagged with a subject. There might exist some pages tagged with the right expert subject, but no category has been created, so they still reside in Category:Miscellaneous articles needing expert attention, together with all pages not tagged with an expert subject. I thought that if pages tagged with an expert subject but without a category would have been sorted in a separate category, then we always know which categories to create. (Some users may not know that a category should be created as it does not show on member pages and one is not notified.) And the first time, maybe we can sort a number of articles by just creating categories for them.
Example: A page is tagged with {{expert-subject|Goa|date=November 2009}} or {{article issues|expert=Goa|date=November 2009}}. Wikipedia:WikiProject Goa exists, but not Category:Goa articles needing expert attention. So the page is categorized in Category:Miscellaneous articles needing expert attention instead.
The page Marie Louise Marcadet is a live example – Category:Sweden articles needing expert attention does not exist.
In other words, I think of: IF WikiProject exists THEN (IF expert category exists THEN put it there ELSE put it in a separate category) ELSE put it in the miscellaneous category.
Do you think it's a good idea to sort out articles similar to the one in this example and put them in a category for tagged articles that just need a category? Iceblock (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello again. I found another approach than changing the expert templates. The tool CatScan 2.0 is able to, among other things, search a category and find pages with a specific template (in this case {{WPBannerMeta}}, which is the WikiProject banner) on their talk page. Here a link to a run on the unsorted expert category: [1]. The achieved effect is not exactly the same, but it I'm sure it's still useful. Iceblock (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Look, I'm going to be honest, I'm not an expert in this (no pun intended). It would probably be better to ask somebody else. Sorry.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 15:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for your time. Iceblock (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Proposed deletion of International Society of Military Sciences (ISMS)

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

The article International Society of Military Sciences (ISMS) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unlikely redirect not recently created. Anyone typing in the full org. name isn't likely to also type in a parenthetical acronym.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DJBullfish 09:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Editor review: done

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Unionhawk! Sorry for the delay, but I have finally got round to doing your review! I know that I said a couple of weeks that I'd do it, but got distracted!

Anyway, I've left the review for you at Wikipedia:Editor review/Unionhawk (2), hope it's OK. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

nyctohylophobia

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Article was deprodded. I have nominated for WP:AFD. Bwrs (talk) 10:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Unionhawk/Archives/2009/November&oldid=1142711897"