Closed discussions

The following discussions are closed. Please do not modify them. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. No further edits should be made to these discussions. Threads will archived every Sunday.

WikiCup 2012 August newsletter

The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

Grapple X (submissions) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
Miyagawa (submissions) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
Ruby2010 (submissions) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
Casliber (submissions) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
Muboshgu (submissions) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
Dana Boomer (submissions) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
Sasata (submissions) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.

However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle: GreatOrangePumpkin (submissions), Ealdgyth (submissions), Calvin999 (submissions), Piotrus (submissions), Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), The Bushranger (submissions) and 1111tomica (submissions). We hope to see you all next year.

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dance again world tour

recently several people edited the page, but you didn't allow anyone to make any changes!!! The article is free. What is wrong with my last edit? I found them perfect... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alxthss (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But u don't explain me what's the problem. I made the page look more beautiful with photos and organized. And dates with Enrique I picked out and I just put them with the link to another page! The difference is very insipid. I think you should compromise... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alxthss (talk • contribs) 21:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The processing of the page is free! I saw some time ago another man who added dates with Enrique too and you cancel it again. And as for the other changes, it's a matter of organization and there is no mistake. In contrast there are many mistakes in the current page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alxthss (talk • contribs) 21:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Dance Again World Tour. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Status (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yeah... so, apparently I was edit warring on Dance Again World Tour when I was actually just reinforcing consensus that was previously reached. This user [[::User:Alxthss|Alxthss]] ([[::User talk:Alxthss|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Alxthss|contribs]]) kept going against said consensus, and several users asked him to take it to the article's talk page if he wishes for tour dates that are part of a different tour to be included on an article for another tour in which they have no relevance to. I explained it to the user several times on their talk and they basically just told me they would keep adding them regardless. [[::User:Hahc21|Hahc21]] ([[::User talk:Hahc21|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Hahc21|contribs]]) (who also reverted him, but was failed to be blocked during this instance by said administration) left him a message, and he blanked his talk page - completely ignoring it - and then proceed to revert, once again. Hahc21 then left a message to [[::User:Toddst1|Toddst1]] ([[::User talk:Toddst1|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Toddst1|contribs]]) and he blocked both Alxthss and I. I totally expected it. Myself, Alxthss, Hahc21 and [[::User:Tomica|Tomica]] ([[::User talk:Tomica|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Tomica|contribs]]) were all involved in this "edit war", yet only me and Alxthss were blocked. So, Hahc21 asked Toddst1 on his talk page if this should be brought to DRN and he just flat out blocked. Okay guys! This is where it gets hilarious! Are you ready for this? The block template states: "During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution." This is where I literally laughed aloud; it was uncontrollable really. There was already consensus reached, yet that user decided to ignore it, and Toddst1 was asked by Hahc21 if it should be taken to dispute resolution. Anyways, as you can see from my block log (which you've probably already seen; and my July archives, if you wanna take a peek) Toddst1 and I have been our fair share of disputes in the past. This is why I wasn't surprised at all he went and blocked me. I know this request is probably against some of the appealing block guidelines (Hahc21 has helped me tone it down the best it can), but I find it to be completely relevant to the topic at hand. I was blocked for "edit warring" to reinforce consensus by an administration who I have had arguments and disagreements in the past. And please, for the love of God, don't treat me like I'm some new user who kept vandalizing articles over and over again and is bitching about the blocking admin. I've been on Wikipedia for a while now, and I know how things work around here (for the most part). I will say that since my last block, which had to do with the way I explained things when reverting other users, I have improved a whole lot. I think I definitely proved that during this dispute, so I do not understand why on Earth I could be blocked. Thanks everyone for taking the time to read this. If you know me, you wouldn't expect anything else.

Accept reason:

Per the discussion on Toddst1's talkpage and below, I'm removing this block. The "invitation" below is a bit over the top, and I too would prefer to see it revoked, but it isn't against policy nor is it a blockable offence. Since it has no bearing on this block, and since the block has already been deemed overly harsh, I see no reason not to lift it. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd like to formally invite Toddst1 to stay off my talk page; anything you say will be reverted by myself, as, quite frankly, I've had enough of you. Statυs (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've talked it over with Toddst1, and I'll unblock on the condition that you withdraw the invitation to Toddst1. I don't deal with editors that try to set restrictions on their talk pages. It inevitably leads to even greater problems.—Kww(talk) 04:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious, what is wrong with asking a user from refraining to comment on your talk page? I simply do not wish to see his comments here. Statυs (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've already agreed that the block was unjust, but I must agree to withdraw a talk page block on Toddst1 to be unblocked? What sense does that make? Statυs (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We all have our ways and preferences. Personally, I would indefinitely block every editor that posted "so and so isn't welcome to post on my talk page" messages. I wouldn't get away with it, so I don't. I don't have to unblock editors that have made such statements, though.—Kww(talk) 04:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense block. Though I'm pretty sure Status can remove Toddst's future comments even w/out an invitation since it's his talk page. Till 04:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked, it is perfectly acceptable to "block" editors from commenting on your own talk page. I find that quite silly, seeing as how blocking certain users from commenting on your talk page does not cause any harm to the 'Pedia. Of course, if such a thing was completely unfounded, that's a completely different story, but clearly you can see where I'm coming from? I simply have no desire to see any comments from him on my talk page. This was mostly to prevent what happened during my last unblock request (another argument between the two of us) from happening again. If Jimbo can ask Fae to stay away from his talk page, then I can ask Toddst1 to stay away from mine. You can deny my unblock request because you don't like when users block other users from their talk, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who would find that ridiculous. I stand by my invitation. Statυs (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I won't deny your unblock, I'll just leave it for another admin to process.—Kww(talk) 04:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

News and notes: World's largest photo competition kicks off; WMF legal fees proposal

Technology report: Time for a MediaWiki Foundation?

Featured content: Wikipedia's Seven Days of Terror

Op-ed: Dispute resolution – where we're at, what we're doing well, and what needs fixing

OMG

So so sad to see this! I hope your not gone too long. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still gonna be around, just not as active; thus semi-retired. I start school again on Thursday so I won't have much time to be on the 'Pedia. Statυs (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I do wish you well! What grade/year will you be in? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am entering my 12th and final year of (normal) school. Statυs (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to...

If you're going to change the B&B cast list for whatever reasons you seem fit, then do it for the three other soaps that are on-air please. It looks as if you're targeting one soap for whatever your reasons are and it breaks the consistency the pages share. Musicfreak7676 ^{my talk page!} 02:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I just happen to be an avid B&B watcher and want to make the list better... Statυs (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree it's making it better. And I'm only saying it, do it ALL soaps so it keeps everything consistent. It disrupts the flow of all of lists. Even discuss changes and join WP:SOAPS. Musicfreak7676 ^{my talk page!} 02:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - I agree the changes you are making to B&B cast are drastic enough they should be discussed on the talk page and/or WP:SOAPS please, at least in the cases that you are deleting a lot of info. Also, I'm not sure if some of the sources are reliable for cast lists (soaps.com, etc). Can we undo the changes that delete info and wait for a discussion to be had? Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you are referring to. Statυs (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will start a discussion on the talk page. I don't think the deceased cast members should be deleted or the durations since you loose the historical info of current contract characters that have left and come back. There's no "tag teaming" I just happened to notice this and figured I would comment in the same box since it is the same topic. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Live! with...

Hi Statυs, Please explain if I'm wrong, but according to Template:Infobox_television#Attributes, what goes in show_name_2 is: '"Also known as", i.e. other names by which the show is known.' Not how it was known, meaning this is for aliases. These are not titles that can be used interchangeably, but are predecessors to the current one. So, preceded_by: should be used. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

preceded_by: is used for "If Show A was a predecessor of Show B, insert the name of Show A and production years." With Live!, they only got a new co-host and changed the title of it to show this; they are not different shows, but the same. Statυs (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, you didn't explain why it should be in show_name_2. As I've shown, it doesn't belong there. The description for show_name_2 doesn't say anything about production years because it for current, while preceded_by: is for past. The only other show I can think of that is like it is The Tonight Show starring..., and none of those list the others at all. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

show_name_2 doesn't really specify anything. Don't think of the years as production years, think of them as the years the show had said title. I'm usually against such years being included, but since the show has had many different titles over the years, I think it's the correct thing to do. It mostly definitely not preceded_by, though. Statυs (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry for the late reply that you left on my talk on 31st August. I'll try to work on the EI and JL tour. Hey i didn't know you were interested in soaps? —ArreJLover 06:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright. I, of course, meant together. xD I start school tomorrow, so I'm probably not gonna have a lot of time on my hands. :( Yes; I told you that before. I'm not interested in anything bother than B&B, though; and it's really pissing me off at the moment... Zac 07:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it pissing you off? Oh by the way, I think that maybe, there is still hope for "Dance Again" to be a huge hit in the US..believe it or not..because, it could be boosted by the film and by Glee.. G.T. is not working right now.. —ArreJLover 10:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The storylines, of course, I'm getting sick and tired of them. Now, if "Dance Again" was newly released and then Glee covered it, that would be a different story; I doubt it's going to help it any. As for the film, maybe. I don't think it will reach a new peak. Zac 15:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B&B is so boring and repetitive, you should watch DOOL or Y&R (even though Y&R sucks). It's all about Steffy-Liam-Hope and it's getting boring to the point that nobody even cares. True, it's just, songs covered by Glee usually re-enter the top 10 or 15 on iTunes. And Katy Perry's film really boosted her sales. —ArreJLover 06:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

You may wish to comment on Rayrayzone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who's behaviour has been brough to ANI here. He proceeded to your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Restoration (album). — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never got a chance to, haha. Zac 01:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beat of My Heart

I fixed the references ^-^ ! — Tomica (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man! Zac [on the go] 13:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current discussions

Talkback

Hello, Status. You have new messages at Talk:Usher discography.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rayman⁹⁵ ^(talk) 17:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Lilith Sternin

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lilith Sternin. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Bold and the Beautiful cast members

I have reverted your edit (except for the celebrity section that I didn't add back since there was a consensus).

I have taken a look at the talk page of this article. All the users disagree with you, at least when it comes to duration. You can't just decide to radically change an article to your own needs and disregard the wish of the other users. That's not how Wikipedia works.

Please discuss with the other users and reach an agreement with them before making again these kinds of changes on the article. If no consensus can be reached for the duration, the original version will have to prevail. Thank you. Farine (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there are no drastic changes to the article. I cited content (which you reverted, by the way) and added a little sentence to the lead. The only issue on the talk is the use of duration, and that is not a reason to revert the entire article. Very poor judgement. It is being discussed on the talk page, whether or not to change back to using duration. That's the only issue. One user thinks that deceased cast members should a section (which is repeating information already present in the article, so it's pointless). Zac 22:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Have you heard about this? ^_^ Swifty*^talk 03:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard about it, but I never got a chance to listen to it yet. Also, remember what a single is? ;) Specifically, that song is a charity single. Zac [on the go] 13:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you remove this for me please?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nicole_Scherziner_UK_X_Factor.jpg

User talk:Status

Archives