User talk:Achowat

A sporting arena called Bruce

Sorry if the vandalism tag was inappropriate. Had I noticed who the edit was by I would probably have been less likely to press that particular button, but the original addition of it, which was surely a joke, had been raised at the talk page. Kevin McE (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I saw the Talk Page, went to the most recent revision (which was by an IP actually removing the vandalism) and, probably because of my frustration with IE (work computer, unfortunately) I must have fat-fingered rollback. All is well now, though. Cheers! Achowat (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked from answering questions/ Ronjohn RFA

− Regardless I still should be offered the equal opportunity like everyone else to answer the questions even if it was futile. I want to be treated equally. I wonder how many African-American Wikipedia Administrators exist............. All i want is a fair chance like everyone else even if I fail. If you look at my log you will see that I've created numerous pages and made significant edits. Before my answered were deleted on my RFA page you would've saw that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronjohn (talk • contribs)

We can take a look at your contributions and make those decisions, which I always do. In fact, I saw your answers to the questions. I don't see why you're acting so offended by this (or bringing race into it). You need more experience and you need to think of the goal of Wikipedia being a better encyclopedia, not as some game for you to 'win' by getting the mop. Contribute well, get in the proper mindset, and then we can talk about advanced permisssions. Achowat (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Like I said I'm pretty there are no black Wikipedian Administrators...--Ron John (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well that's a pretty strong accusation to make. One that I imagine is baseless (meaning there's no way you know that). And, because No User is required to identify by race (and I can only think of a handful that do) it would be almost impossible to check. But my bigger concern is what you think that contention means.

Do you, I mean is it possible that you honestly believe that as a black editor you should be promoted to Adminship on that fact alone? I know that my process for !voting does not now nor has ever included an editors Demographics. In fact, I think it's pretty offensive to suggest that a Prevaling Numbers of RfA voters are going out of their way to not promote Black Admins.

Is there a systematic bias that leads to more White editors than Black editors? Yes, I believe there is. I believe that is a problem. I believe we should look into it. But to suggest that Black Editors fail RfA because they are Black is a ridiculous statement. As a person of color myself, I've never, not once, felt like my contributions are less valid than a White editor's. Not even once.

Your RfA failed because you don't have the experience that RfA !voters expect. Under 1,000 edits is not going to do it. We need a longer record of your contributions before we can trust you with the Tools. And, frankly, thinking that you can pass an RfA with less than 1,000 edits shows a serious lack of clue. I'm being tough on you because I tried parsing words and you you either didn't understand, or "didn't understand", either way I feel bluntness is needed. If I offend you, I sincerely apologize.

But it's clear that you have an enthusiasm for the project. It's clear that you want to help. So please, please keep contributing. Read through your Opposition !votes. Use it as an Editor Review. Figure out what you've been doing wrong, and try to fix those behaviors. RfA is an open-book test you can re-take every time you fail, but you need to recognize why you were not promoted, and work on those issues. Cheers! Achowat (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I can provide 100% guarantee that we do have black administrators. Not that it matters. Not that it should matter. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

2002 World Cup @ Bruce Arena

Hello, Achowat. I noticed that you deleted my number of sentences regarding the match between Germany and USA in the 2002 World Cup tournament. I felt that the information about the controversial no-decision on the handball Torsten Frings performed was inciteful and interesting. There is no denying that the ball hit his hand, which prevented a tying goal. Do you feel that someone who wished to read about Arena would not like to read about this incident? It did have a major impact on the U.S.A's tournament run and possibly on Arena's career as the National team manager. I noticed that you wrote "unsourced POV" on the feedback, does that mean I simply need to find a source for the incident? I see you are an experienced editor and I value your feedback and any pointers you could give. I am new to editing and would like to be a reliable contributor.

Wpruitt30 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpruitt30 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the first thing that you should realize is that Wikipedia is not a collection of things that are true. It is a collection of things that are verifiable. Essentially, in this case, it's not enough to say it happened; we need to say what reliable source shares your opinion of the 'obvious' handball. I watched the game, I thought it was a handball, too, and I was bullshit about the call.

I also feel that adding that line was giving undue weight to the claim. The article should have focused, mainly, on an overview of Arena and his work with the Nats. For instance, the Group Games in total get 3 sentences, including that amazing win over Portugal.

I should also mention that "To their credit" is entirely unencyclopedic language (it feels more like editorializing) and feels like an attempt to insert a point of view about the loss. If a number of prominent sources indicate the handball, it might be possible to include it in the article, but I'd be weary.

It could be said that, like painting, the biggest skill of writing an encyclopedia is when to stop writing. We are, in fact, judged as much by what we exclude as what we include.

But the most important you could possibly take away from this situation is that, frankly, I might not be right. Those sentences might be worth for inclusion. If you disagree with my assessment (and you'd be far from the first to do so), take the issue to the article's talk page. If a consensus of editors agree that that's the best way to handle the article, than that's what we'll do. Achowat (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and you should definitely follow all those blue-links for important Wikipedia policies and guidelines (and maybe a few essays snuck in there). I'd also recommend WP:5P, WP:IAR, and WP:N. If you follow those blue links, and then links on those pages, you'll go deep enough down the rabbit hole to know what all those TLA's mean. (Also, just as important, on all Talk Pages, you should sign your name and leave a timestamp by ending your comments with four tildes (~~~~); it'll just help everyone else keep track). Achowat (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Tudor Rose

What a coincidence that I was preparing a quote from the a historian about the origins of the rose at just the same time as you were asking for a citation! It's a small world. Quote now added. Regards. Tim riley (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have responded on your Talk Page. Achowat (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm much touched, and I chuckled too! Thank you for the barnstar! Tim riley (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Achowat. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 20:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 March newsletter

We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! Grapple X (submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's Cwmhiraeth (submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's Casliber (submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

Congratulations to Matthewedwards (submissions), whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to 12george1 (submissions), who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Wikipedia:Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from Miyagawa (submissions) show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, 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 receiving 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) 23:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

User:BradTraylor/Battle of Imizu

I see no way that it can be brought up to snuff when another user has clearly pointed out that the content is a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for letting me know of the work done by that other editor. I have reconsidered my !vote, as such. Cheers! Achowat (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

• Interview: An introduction to movement roles

• Arbitration analysis: Case review: TimidGuy ban appeal

• News and notes: Berlin reforms to movement structures, Wikidata launches with fanfare, and Wikipedia's day of mischief

• WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Signpost

• Featured content: Snakes, misnamed chapels, and emptiness: featured content this week

• Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review in third week, one open case

• Technology report: Somewhere amongst the endless discussions about Gerrit lie details of hackathons, performance blips explained and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Another one (or two)!?

Here are two templates you may find useful (cf. your userpage to-do list ;-) : {{Bulb}} (B) and {{Await}} (C). ^{Of note, this message should not be acted upon as though it had some serious meaning; it's just some template I found that you seem like you have use for} Cheers, benzband (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You're seriously my Template-hero today. Thanks and Cheers! grumble now I've gotta fix it grumblegrumble Achowat (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm only an amateur but i just love messing aroundworking with templates… so i'm sure happy if i could help! :D benzband (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Achowat. You have new messages at Mabdul's talk page.
Message added 12:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

mabdul 12:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.2.116 (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)