Jump to content

User talk:Biblioworm: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Mo2c (talk | contribs)
77 edits
→‎Co-op with ~~~: new section
Line 309: Line 309:
With further reference to your comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kudpung&diff=674547885&oldid=674296575 here], the fact is you coudn't possibly have known, not from anywhere on Wikipedia, and not from any email I sent and that at no time did I ever make such a suggestion to the candidate. In fact my message was a clear piece of advice warning the candidate that they are not ready. You can understand therefore that this issue gives me pause. Bear in mind also that if I had produced a link to the thread on my talk page to the bureaucrats, as I could have done and nearly did, it may well have been the deal breaker for that RfA. --[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 02:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
With further reference to your comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kudpung&diff=674547885&oldid=674296575 here], the fact is you coudn't possibly have known, not from anywhere on Wikipedia, and not from any email I sent and that at no time did I ever make such a suggestion to the candidate. In fact my message was a clear piece of advice warning the candidate that they are not ready. You can understand therefore that this issue gives me pause. Bear in mind also that if I had produced a link to the thread on my talk page to the bureaucrats, as I could have done and nearly did, it may well have been the deal breaker for that RfA. --[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 02:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|Kudpung}} Hi. Unless my brain is becoming severely delusional, I do seem to recall that you once made a very vague insinuation that you would support Liz at RfA. Of course, I'm no email hacker, and there have not been any correspondence leaks that I'm aware of, so this comment I recall was made publlcly. If you wish to know the details, then I will mention what I remember: You once commented that a certain candidate (was it MelanieN?) practically had to be forced to RfA, and I seem to remember that you addressed Liz in some related discussion asking if she would resist the prospect of an RfA. I don't remember the details of the wording or anything of that sort, but I interpreted the comment as something of an unclear suggestion that you might want Liz to be an administrator. That's what I remember, but perhaps it was all false and I've gone mad or it was just a dream. ;) --[[User:Biblioworm|<span style="color:#6F4E37;">'''Biblioworm'''</span>]] [[User_talk:Biblioworm|<span style="color:#6F4E37">'''(talk)'''</span>]] 05:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|Kudpung}} Hi. Unless my brain is becoming severely delusional, I do seem to recall that you once made a very vague insinuation that you would support Liz at RfA. Of course, I'm no email hacker, and there have not been any correspondence leaks that I'm aware of, so this comment I recall was made publlcly. If you wish to know the details, then I will mention what I remember: You once commented that a certain candidate (was it MelanieN?) practically had to be forced to RfA, and I seem to remember that you addressed Liz in some related discussion asking if she would resist the prospect of an RfA. I don't remember the details of the wording or anything of that sort, but I interpreted the comment as something of an unclear suggestion that you might want Liz to be an administrator. That's what I remember, but perhaps it was all false and I've gone mad or it was just a dream. ;) --[[User:Biblioworm|<span style="color:#6F4E37;">'''Biblioworm'''</span>]] [[User_talk:Biblioworm|<span style="color:#6F4E37">'''(talk)'''</span>]] 05:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

== Co-op with [[User:Mo2c|mo2c]] ([[User talk:Mo2c|talk]]) ==

Hi Biblioworm,

Sorry for the late response, We were still in the process of writing up content for our Wiki Page.
Please let me know when you're ready and I'll send the content over to you. Thanks!

[[User:Mo2c|mo2c]] ([[User talk:Mo2c|talk]]) 09:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:24, 12 August 2015

Template:Semi-wikibreak (simple)

Note

  • Note: Due to some issues that have recently arisen in real life, I'm afraid that Wikipedia is of comparatively quite low priority. Therefore, I am currently taking a break of indeterminate length, which may last for a considerable time (i.e., weeks). Messages left on this talk page will not receive a timely reply. My email, though, is enabled, so any messages of very significant importance can be sent there through Wikipedia's email system. I do, however, hope to return in the near future. Regards, --Biblioworm 01:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hope it all works out for you @Biblioworm: - thanks for your efforts on House of Plantagenet. It was good work so a shame you didn't get to the end but some things are more important. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to see this, Biblioworm. Hope things settle down soon. --Stfg (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto; I hope RL doesn't treat you badly and hope to see you again soon. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I am still not back to full activity levels, and may not be for quite some time, but I feel that it's now appropriate to change the banner on my talk page to "semi-wikibreak", since I may make the occasional edit(s). Regards, --Biblioworm 23:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. Legobot (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Co-op Pilot Results & Mentoring

Hey there! The Co-op has been on a hiatus for a bit, but we are planning on opening up shop again soon. When you're able, please read over and respond to this update on our talk page. We have favorable results from our final report regarding the pilot, and we are interested in seeing who is available to mentor when we reopen our space and begin to send out invites again. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent by I JethroBT (talk · contribs) via Mass Message. (Opt-out instructions)

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

Double voting

I might be wrong but I don't think this is right. DQ voted once and proxied for Native Foreigner, who apparently voted via a mailing list. No biggie, certainly not in the scale of all the crap that is flying around! - Sitush (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

  1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

  1. The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from Adelaide!

Hi there! I'm User:Adelaide from wikiHow, but not very active here, I just come in occasionally to sign in and check my notifications and everything. We communicate a lot on wikiHow, so I just thought I'd stop in and say hi to a familiar 'face'! Are you still active here? EmilyREditor (talk)

Hello! Yes, I'm still quite active here, although temporarily not as active as normal. I had no idea that you had an account here... --Biblioworm 14:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I've had an account for years, longer than wikiHow...and yeah, if you had seen me two years ago, I was a lot less mature, and even went so far as to get blocked and whine when I was blocked...I am now maturing my attitude and trying to pop in here when I can. I need to get to editing here a bit! EmilyREditor (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering! Are you an admin here? I'm looking at your contributions so I can get some inspiration and perhaps do more here, in addition to all the stuff I do for wikiHow.... EmilyREditor (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

Hey, I saw your talk page archive! Great idea :) I'll have to do this myself! EmilyREditor (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and do you have any tips for how I can edit constructively? EmilyREditor (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in case you were wondering, please do feel free to call me Adelaide, even when you're communicating with me here! EmilyREditor (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EmilyREditor: No, I'm not an admin here, but I do have about 7.6k edits and 10 months of experience, so I'll do what I can. To answer your question on editing constructively, it really depends on your interests. I could give general advice, but it would be somewhat better for you if I were able to give more specific advice. Also, it is important to keep in mind that Wikipedia is quite different from wikiHow in many ways. Perhaps the most relevant example here is that Wikipedia is not a how-to site, so attempts to add instructions to an article will almost always be reverted. (Adding instructions on avoiding sunburn in the sunburn article, for instance.) It is also important to keep in mind that Wikipedia is overall run by much more direct community involvement than on wikiHow, where most of the deletion voting and other things are done by special usergroups. Overall, a good starting point might be Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Biblioworm 15:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thank you for the insights! It can be easy to get so used to thinking this is a how-to site... EmilyREditor (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EmilyREditor: It just occurred to me that you may want to check out the Community Portal. There are many possible tasks listed there, and you can always click "More..." if you're interested in a specific task. Also, a very helpful tool is CatScan. For instance, if you're interested in copy editing articles about the Middle Ages (one of my personal interests), you would enter "Wikipedia articles needing copy edit" and "Middle Ages" in the "Categories" text box. For "Depth", something like 5 is typically best. After that, click the "Do It!" button near the bottom of the page. Using the tool, you may be able to get a list of articles you're interested in which need a specific type of work. I hope that's helpful. --Biblioworm 00:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

Thanks for all the hard work you do around here! EmilyREditor (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

  1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
  2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
    1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
    2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

RfA

Please be absolutely sure to leave an ES when you do something like this so that admins or stats gatherers can follow up if necessary. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

TFA

The next step is to wait a few days and see how many applicants we get. In the meantime, feel free to ask any questions you like. - Dank (push to talk) 04:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, odds are good that you've got the job. I'm assuming you don't want to do Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 24, 2015, and I've done all the other TFAs that have been scheduled so far. Brian hasn't scheduled the last 3 days of July yet, and Chris will be doing August. It would probably be best for you to keep an eye on WP:TFAA, and if you see something get scheduled that you'd like to do, let me know before I get started on it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: Thanks. I've added the page you mentioned to my watchlist. --Biblioworm 02:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing happens on that page that will show up on your watchlist, you have to actually eyeball the page. (You could watchlist each day's TFA separately like I do, but that would probably be overkill.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From what you said above, you might be interested in 30 July or 1 August. - Dank (push to talk) 11:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: Not particularly interested in paintings of that sort. However, I would like to do the 30 July column. --Biblioworm 14:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 14:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: So, how do I write this? It already looks summarized to me. --Biblioworm 14:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was summarized at TFAR. I haven't read it yet, but I find that I usually make tweaks to columns that have been through TFAR. If nothing jumps out at you, then it's fine to do a different column. - Dank (push to talk) 15:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: I've decided that I would like to do the column for the 5 August article. It seems to still need quite a bit of work. --Biblioworm 21:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Don't worry about FAC standards, that's what I'm for. Use a style that works for you. - Dank (push to talk) 21:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: I've done what I can on the column. If there's anything which needs fixing, feel free to tell me. --Biblioworm 22:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's nearly perfect. I made some minor tweaks ... nothing for you to worry about, but I can explain if you like. I'm happy you're on board. - Dank (push to talk) 01:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of William G. Farrow

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William G. Farrow you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ceradon -- Ceradon (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of William G. Farrow

The article William G. Farrow you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:William G. Farrow for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ceradon -- Ceradon (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dundee Courier

RIMS Warren Hastings image. Is this from Scotland, as there is a Dundee near the wreck? SovalValtos (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SovalValtos: Hi. I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here. Are you asking if the wreck took place near Scotland? I uploaded the new image because I wanted to fix an issue or two and have a more specific name for it. --Biblioworm 21:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the newspaper that the image is sourced from is likely Dundee Scotland rather than Dundee Africa, so I am suggesting adding to the caption '(Scotland)' so that it reads "A sketch depicting the wreck of the RIMS Warren Hastings, published by the Dundee Courier (Scotland) on 24 March 1897." ie disambiguation as to which paper is the source. SovalValtos (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll link the text to clarify it. --Biblioworm 21:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward

Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.)
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

DYK for William G. Farrow

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

accidental undo

I don't recall hitting undo or visiting that page recently even. Not sure what happened. Dream Focus 20:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: If your account is doing things which you don't recall doing, you might consider changing your password as a safety precaution, just in case it's been hacked. --Biblioworm 21:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

2015 GA Cup - Round 2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 2

Greetings, GA Cup competitors!

Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. The Rambling Man, who was eliminated during the first round in our last competition, earned an impressive 513 points, reviewed twice as many articles (26) as any other competitor. It was a tight race for second for first-time competitors BenLinus1214 and Tomandjerry211, who finished second and third with 243 and 224 points, respectively. Close behind was Wugapodes, who earned 205 points.

The change in our points system had an impact on scoring. It was easier to earn higher points, although the key to success didn't change from last time, which was choosing articles with older nomination dates. For example, most of the articles The Rambling Man reviewed were worth 18 points in the nomination date category, and he benefited from it. BenLinus1214 reviewed the longest article, A Simple Plan (at 26,536 characters, or 4,477 words), the 1994 film starring Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, and Bridget Fonda and directed by Sam Raimi, and earned all possible 5 points in that category.

After feedback from our participants, the judges slightly changed the rule about review length this time out. Shorter reviews are now allowed, as long as reviewers give nominators an opportunity to address their feedback. Shorter reviews are subject to the judges' discretion; the judges will continue their diligence as we continue the competition.

Despite having fewer contestants at the beginning of Round 1 than last time, 132 articles were reviewed, far more than the 117 articles that were reviewed in Round 1 of the inaugural GA Cup. All of us involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished thus far. The judges are certain that Round 2 will be just as successful.

16 contestants have moved onto Round 2 and have been randomly placed in 4 groups of 4, with the top 2 in each pool progressing to Round 3, as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 has already begun and will end on August 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here.

Good luck and remember to have fun!

Cheers from Dom497, Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 5, 2015

Congratulations, that went really well ... people made only minor tweaks on its TFA day. You may want to watchlist the last 3 days in August and every day in September, if you'd like to grab more TFAs to do before I do them (I generally can't afford to wait more than a day or two to get started on them). - Dank (push to talk) 17:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

With further reference to your comment here, the fact is you coudn't possibly have known, not from anywhere on Wikipedia, and not from any email I sent and that at no time did I ever make such a suggestion to the candidate. In fact my message was a clear piece of advice warning the candidate that they are not ready. You can understand therefore that this issue gives me pause. Bear in mind also that if I had produced a link to the thread on my talk page to the bureaucrats, as I could have done and nearly did, it may well have been the deal breaker for that RfA. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Hi. Unless my brain is becoming severely delusional, I do seem to recall that you once made a very vague insinuation that you would support Liz at RfA. Of course, I'm no email hacker, and there have not been any correspondence leaks that I'm aware of, so this comment I recall was made publlcly. If you wish to know the details, then I will mention what I remember: You once commented that a certain candidate (was it MelanieN?) practically had to be forced to RfA, and I seem to remember that you addressed Liz in some related discussion asking if she would resist the prospect of an RfA. I don't remember the details of the wording or anything of that sort, but I interpreted the comment as something of an unclear suggestion that you might want Liz to be an administrator. That's what I remember, but perhaps it was all false and I've gone mad or it was just a dream. ;) --Biblioworm (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Co-op with mo2c (talk)

Hi Biblioworm,

Sorry for the late response, We were still in the process of writing up content for our Wiki Page. Please let me know when you're ready and I'll send the content over to you. Thanks!

mo2c (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Biblioworm&oldid=675729783"