User talk:Magister Scienta

Class demotion of Occupy Wall Street Your demotion of the class level to the article was not appropriate. These are set by the projects and the only acceptable way to raise or lower a class in every project is when it has obviously not been updated from a lower class, like stub or start and even then if someone objects they may simply put it back. Discussion is not required for every edit and if you feel a discussion should be made to gain consensus for your edit...please feel free to begin it. No one is required to discuss a revert or edit, but if you feel strongly we can discuss it on the articles talk page however...the article was just split (by me) and if you took the time to check you would see I am in the process of cleanup. There is no reason to drop the article from B to C over those errors. They are autogenerated and not from a mistake or lack of proper references, although...many of them are bare urls and that too should be fixed. As it stands those erros will certainly keep it from GA...but not B class.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC) While I'm going to drop the issue I stand by my decision to demote the article to C-class. First of all, your claim regarding the illegitimacy of changing more than 1 project grade at a time, do you have policy or guideline that you're referring to or is that your own personal opinion? Yes, my edit was bold, but, as I'm sure you know, WP:BOLD is very clear in allowing bold actions to improve the encyclopedia. Furthermore, the reason why such errors exist is pretty much irrelevant to the fact that they exist. I know you said you were working on it, but truthfully I haven't seen any of the refs cleaned up. And on top of that, there were other issues with the article that I felt made it unqualified for B status, such as its minuscule lead, NPOV issues, instability, etc. Magister Scientatalk 17:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Your decision is not really in question. As you said, it was a bold edit and you were within your rights as an editor to make the change. However, in this case your edit overrode the ratings of several projects. Would it not have been better to simply notify the projects of your change first or even afterwards? As the projects do have a say in whether or not the ratings should stand. Look.....I'm with you on this one. It's probably a C class at best, but simply taking it down a notch made me feel you were acting to hastily. How fast exactly do I need to work to satisfy you personally? I just made the split and frankly references being dealt with on the page that was the priority because the errors on the main page can easily be "Removed" as the actual references are not there.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Fair enough, I recognize that my actions were not the best that could have been done in that situation and I will refrain from making similar edits in the future. In regards to how fast you need to work to "personally satisfy" me, well, just show that the article's refs are being dealt with and are moving in a positive direction and I don't think any editors will give you a hard time. Keep up the great work, Magister Scientatalk 19:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Not that you're involved but Thought you might like to know [1] and Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Occupy Wall Street". Thank you. --Be——Critical 03:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC) I am so sorry. I didn't know that canvassing uninvolved editors to a dispute resolution based on their having involvement in a different edit was allowed. Should I do the same? No...I think we should both leave this editor and others out of your dispute. If this editor decides my revert of the class rating was inappropriate I am sure they may take the actions they feel are appropriate. My apologies to Magister Scienta.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Thank you I see you work much faster than I. Sorry. I purposely removed the auto generated list to see where the exact locations were to the commented out references. That has been an ongoing way for editors to "fix" references. But in fact the actual reference is gone with only the group name placed next to prose. I wanted to have a quick reference to fix this problem. I did a save back to the article before my edit to return it at about the same time as you. I wonder though on your opinion of something (OK, besides my being a pain) what do you think is better....leaving the commented out refs alone (which means they are not really referenced) or attempting to find these from the article history? --Amadscientist (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Three things. 1) You're not a pain, you're a dedicated Wikipedian who stands up for their opinion. 2) Whatever you ultimately decide, I would wholeheartedly go with. 3) My initial reaction is comment out the refs and, overtime, you, me, and other editors can try to find the original "full refs." To me that seems like both a short and longterm solution. Thoughts? Magister Scientatalk 20:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC) My only concern over the commented out refs is if we go through all the trouble of finding them in the history and put them back....would we run the risk of re-adding a reference that was removed for good reason with consensus for it's removal? But...then since it was only the main reference which carries all the information that was deleted....it was probably deleted from the place where is was disputed....so I assume placing the main group ref at the first spot commented out would be safe since it still has the reference in place at that location.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Cat-Class A Song of Ice and Fire articles A tag has been placed on Category:Cat-Class A Song of Ice and Fire articles, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason: G6. The correct name is Category:Category-Class A Song of Ice and Fire articles (and the latter already exists) Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Pichpich (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Image-Class A Song of Ice and Fire articles A tag has been placed on Category:Image-Class A Song of Ice and Fire articles, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason: G6. The standard name for this category is Category:File-Class A Song of Ice and Fire articles and that category already exists. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Pichpich (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Portal:Judaism I've reviewed your PR, cheers, ResMar 17:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Geshem and Tal (related to Shemini Atzeret) Hi, Magister. From Shemini Atzeret, I jumped over to Tefillat Geshem (a specific prayer for that day). I then jumped over to its Passover counterpart, Tefillat Tal, only to learn that Tal redirects back to Geshem. This is apparently based on how these two subjects were handled in the open-source Jewish Encyclopedia article, from which the Geshem article was lifted. I'm thinking it's worth reorganizing this a little bit. Would you mind have a look at my sandbox? I'd like to get your opinion on my approach before I start. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Hi Steven, I am quite busy right now and I'd love to help out when I have a little more time on my hands. If you feel that some reorganizing should be done, [[WP:BOLD}be bold]] and do it. Cheers, Magister Scientatalk 15:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Adminship I would like to nominate you for adminship. Is this okay with you? Bloope (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Thank you. While I'm absolutely honored, I think don't think it's my time for adminship just yet. While I definitely hope to become an admin someday, I feel that right now I have other priorities. Again, thanks. Magister Scientatalk 17:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC) EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 8 February 2012 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)