This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cla68 (talk | contribs) at 10:59, 11 February 2012 (ad hominem and the Fae RfC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:59, 11 February 2012 by Cla68 (talk | contribs) (ad hominem and the Fae RfC)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Please don't spam me with stuff like newsletters, and GA reviews, I will ignore it. Also because of long standing harassment from ED, my user talk page is semi-protected. If you are a IP or a new editor and need to speak to me, leave me a message here. Also note if you come only to vandalize or harass me, it WON'T WORK, and I'm more than willing to give a nice block and contact your IP server (depends on how severe it is)
|
|
|
|
|
|
DRV
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).
If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Fæ
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Admin Coaching
I see on the status page that you are looking for a coachee. I am a dedicated newpage patroller, and have always wanted to become an admin, but I feel that my lack of contribution to content is holding me back. I have trouble finding where I could write content, so I mainly do maintenance tasks. It seems, from the reading the RfAs, that the ability to do maintenance is lucrative, but that writing content, which is Misplaced Pages's core, is important as well. I would also like to become more involved with the community more, but don't know where to begin. I have always wanted to become an AfD contributer though :). If you can take me in and train me, I would appreciate it. Thanks.--Yutsi / Contributions 15:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 January newsletter
WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is 
Grapple X (submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by 
Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is 
Jivesh boodhun (submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!
The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.
A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
12george1 (submissions) was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.- 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
Sp33dyphil (submissions) was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.- Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!- Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.
We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.
A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: File:SHI.JPG
Hello Secret. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File:SHI.JPG, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It is an image file, so F10 does not apply. WP:FFD is the way to go. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Response
I haven't specifically been on Misplaced Pages's IRC Channel, but I am fairly experienced with IRC, as it's a safe haven for computer people like myself. I am of course willing to accept your offer as a coach, seeing that I was the one to request it. I've been editing Misplaced Pages for a while, and am getting serious about adminship now. Becoming a Misplaced Pages admin has been my dream from the start. Thanks for your help.--Yutsi / Contributions 15:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Typo?
In this you refer to "Sam Blackster". I assume you mean "Sam Blacketer" --SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Wade Key
Thanks for the review, I'll expand the article per your suggestions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Pres Mull
I've responded at the page, if you haven't noticed. – Connormah (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I saw it and it got approved. Secret 23:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like I'm the unaware one here. Thanks! – Connormah (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Strawberries
|
Hi mate! Here, have some strawberries. Von Restorff (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC) |
DYK for Eric Hosmer
 | On 4 February 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eric Hosmer, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that after being selected third overall in the 2008 MLB Draft, Eric Hosmer was given a six million dollar signing bonus, the largest in Kansas City Royals history? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eric Hosmer.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. |
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
| |||
Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/History/2012/Submissions/Secret
Hi- I've removed the good article review from the page, as it is not yet eligible. You cannot claim points for a good article review until they are closed; see the review through to the end, and then you can claim. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Ad hominem and the Fae RfC
Secret, in my opinion, your comments accusing others of having dubious reasons for engaging in dispute resolution ("some kind of agenda" and "disruptive trolls") I have listed in this section in relation to the Fae RfC constitute an ad hominem attack on the drafters of the RfC. Since ad hominem arguments attack the character of the person (in an attempt to damage the credibility of their message), I believe such debate tactics violate WP:NPA. Also, an ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy, and thus provides little help in addressing the validity of the issues raised in the statement of dispute. Please refrain from ad hominem arguments in the future. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)