User talk:J Milburn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive

Archives edit header

Archive 38
Archive 39
Archive 40
Archive 41

READ THIS:

Please create new sections at the bottom of the page. Do not assume I know which article, image or page you are talking about, please provide a link so I do know, even it has been deleted. Also, please sign your messages, so I know who you are. I will reply on your talk page, unless you tell me otherwise.

I will probably remove bot and template messages after reading them, but they are still appreciated. Most other messages will be archived. Remember that a lot of people could read this- for confidential communication, email me, though for the vast majority of messages, here is the appropriate place. Thanks!

Claiming Cup points a month after promotion?[edit]

Is this considered acceptable? I was fine with what ThaddeusB did earlier, because his editing patterns were consistent in terms of editing his content log in blocks. But in this instance, this strikes me as gaming the system, given that this user edited his submissions page individually in the previous rounds and was active throughout the entire summer to make any updates needed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Pinging The ed17 and Miyagawa. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, I'll look into this later today or tomorrow. Pinging Czar. J Milburn (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm out of town and then moving, so forgive me if I may be slow to respond to reply. I waited to update because I had enough notifs coming in that it became a chore to track—thought it wouldn't be a problem to just do it at once so I didn't miss anything. I wouldn't have done it that way had I thought it would bother anyone. czar  11:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Are you telling me you were "storing" these submissions in secret all along before deciding to release one big deluge just a week before the round ends? The last WikiCup newsletter reminded everyone in the comp to "update submission pages promptly". And for someone who has always added submissions individually (according to your revision history), this strains the bounds of credulity to the breaking point. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit put off by your presumption of bad faith, to be honest. I didn't compile the list until I posted it and I'm afraid I must have skimmed that part of the newsletter, which would be my own fault (though I receive a lot of notifications). I really didn't think it was going to be a problem. Anyway, looks like this is out of my hands at this point, unless I would need to withdraw. czar  12:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit put off by how someone can go from dead last with no points to third place overall with just one edit a week before the tournament ends, to be honest. As things stand, I don't see the point of having a scoreboard if it doesn't reflect the true progress of each competitor. It just comes to show that being open and transparent (i.e. acting in good faith) in this comp only means you lose out. And it's not just me – all but two competitors have dropped a place because of this. If this action is deemed acceptable, then I might as well adopt this strategy of late updates myself. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Bloom, this does all come across as a bit witch-hunt-y- this isn't a cross-examination! What Czar did certainly isn't exactly ideal practice, and I understand why you're frustrated. That said, it doesn't stretch credulity to believe that it was done in good faith- if it was done in a few days time, perhaps not; if Czar had a history of gaming the system, perhaps not. I don't mind admitting that I'm not quite sure how best to deal with this. Miyagawa, have you any views? Feel free to email me. J Milburn (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course this is "a bit witch-hunt-y" – that's what happens when I want a fair, transparent and honest competition. And I hope the judges and everyone else in the comp want the same thing too. Sure, the Cup is meant to "make editing on Wikipedia more fun", but it ruins the fun for all of us when one or two people act in this manner. Of course, one can argue that no written rule was broken per se, but someone acts in a way that makes the tournament less fair, less transparent and less honest, are we going to continue saying that nothing wrong was done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Bloom6132, Czar: I'm afraid I have had no response from the other judges, and I am moving house tomorrow, so will have limited Internet access for at least a few days. Bloom, to be honest, I think you need to reconsider your relationship with other Wikipedians; when you think it's obvious that you're on a witch-hunt, I think you may have lost the spirit of collegiality which we should ideally have with each other. WikiCup or no WikiCup, I don't think that is ideal. To be clear: I don't personally have any intention of stripping Czar of any points, and I note that, even if Czar's score was still zero, you would not currently be in a qualifying position. I will say that it may be worth trying to introduce a rule about this next year, but I'm certainly not going to start enforcing rules that weren't in place at the start of the competition. J Milburn (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

for pointing out those dab links on So. The David Rhodes links now lead to his band Random Hold, of which I believe he is most prominently associated with. Do you think that's suitable? —JennKR | 18:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014[edit]

DYK for The Harrowing (Inside No. 9)[edit]

Thanks for your contribution Victuallers (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Inside No. 9[edit]

Thank you from the DYK project and me Victuallers (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)