User talk:Fourthords

Orphaned non-free media (File:Dor Ayesha Takia.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:Dor Ayesha Takia.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I only cropped the photo, but thanks for the heads-up. — fourthords | =Λ= | 04:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Squarespace logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Squarespace logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I fixed it! — fourthords |=Λ= | 18:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup!

Hello, Fourthords, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The competition begins at midnight UTC. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:

• The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
• Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
• If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
• Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
• Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.

Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 17:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Squarespace logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Squarespace logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I tagged that file for deletion just today. Thanks, though. — fourthords | =Λ= | 06:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter

Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader ( Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
• Buggie111 (submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
• Spencer (submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
• Status (submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:

• Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
• Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
• HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

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) 00:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

1. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
2. Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
3. Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

• Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
• Sasata (submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
• Muboshgu (submissions) and Wizardman (submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
• Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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) J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter

We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr ( Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare ( Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus ( Keilana (submissions) and Casliber (submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John ( Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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) J Milburn (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Heather O'Rourke as Carol Anne.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Heather O'Rourke as Carol Anne.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. The image was replaced with another that is inadequately rationaled and less suitable for all aspects of the article. I've replaced the image into the article. — fourthords | =Λ= | 06:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

[[[Heather O'Rourke]]

Using a photograph from Poltergeist III is ridiculous. She's much more famous for the original Poltergeist. We don't use a photo of Cary Grant taken hours before his fatal stroke. Paul Austin (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The included photo of Ms. O'Rourke from Poltergeist III specifically corroborates both the 3 February 1988 New York Times citation and the 1989 Motion Picture Guide Annual citation. If you have a reliable source explicitly mentioning that Ms. O'Rourke's appearance in the first Poltergeist was more important or iconic, or that her third character appearance was out of the norm for such an appearance, that could warrant adding such an additional photo. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a similar discussion being held at Talk:Heather O'Rourke#More famous for the original Poltergeist - shouldn't we use an image from that; I have copied my reply above to that page and suggest it be continued there instead of here. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Woolwich attack pic of Lee Rigby

There has been an ongoing dispute over the sizing of that picture. See talk-page. Several editors want at "upright" size. They also keep moving it right. Currently they have a quorum. Amandajm (talk) 07:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I totally didn't mean to insert myself into a disagreement, nor am I interested in entering one now. Thanks for the heads-up, though. — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The 37's, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Two-part episode and Dennis McCarthy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. — fourthords | =Λ= | 14:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2014 WikiCup!

Hello Fourthords, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition began on 1 January. There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! J Milburn (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 15:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Theater Hopper (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Inking and Music scene

Initiations (Star Trek: Voyager) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dennis McCarthy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Theater Hopper

Hello! Your submission of Theater Hopper at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 January newsletter

The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

• 12george1 (submissions) and TropicalAnalystwx13 (submissions) were the first people to score, for the good article Tropical Storm Bret (1981) and its good article review respectively. 12george1 was also the first person to score in 2012 and 2013.
• Sven Manguard (submissions) scored the first ITN points for 2014 North American polar vortex.
• WonderBoy1998 (submissions) scored points for an early good topic, finishing off Wikipedia:Featured topics/She Wolf.
• TheAustinMan (submissions) scored the first bonus points of the competition, for his work on Typhoon Vera.
• Igordebraga (submissions) has scored the highest number of bonus points for a single article, for the high-importance Jurassic Park (film).

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Theater Hopper

Orlady (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elogium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dennis McCarthy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 February newsletter

And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:

1. Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
2. Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
3. WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

• Hahc21 (submissions), who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
• Prism (submissions), who claimed the first featured list of the competition with Natalia Kills discography.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions), who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Projections

Hi, sorry for coming to the review late as I have been ill over the week. I've reviewed the article and put it on hold for seven days are there are some very minor copyediting issues to address to! I've mentioned it all on its review page. Once those issues have been addressed it can be easily passed as there is little wrong with it! Thanks, ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You will be happy to know that Projections swiftly passed the GAN. I left the comments on the GA page. Well done on another Voyager GA! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if this caused any inconvenience as I realised you have an open RFA. If only I wasn't ill! I made a support by the way - I didn't see why not. I thought about nominating myself for admin once, but a lot of people don't like my past! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hi Fourthords, I was just looking at your RfA (it's not an area I spend much time at) I just wanted some clarification on your response to Q1. You say that you will be closing uncontested AfDs and FfDs, do you mean ones that are clear "delete" or "keep" initially, and then branching out (as you mention later)? I didn't think this warranted a question on the RfA page, but it's a little unclear to me. If you are going to add to your answer (not saying you have to) I would suggest adding at the bottom (with an extra indent) rather than changing the wording of your response. Best of luck. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, exactly. I'll clear out AfDs and FfDs that are clearly either keep or delete, and then, as time goes on, decide on more controversial deletion discussions. I'll add this exact wording to my answer. — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That is what I thought, I know how something can make perfect sense in your head, but sound different to someone else. :) --kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

USS Lexington is a disambiguation page, did you mean a specific ship? ϢereSpielChequers 21:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I meant the disambiguation page. Question two asked for my best contributions, and I feel that USS Lexington (among, I hope, most pages I work on), is qualitatively one of my best contributions. Along with Ben Abell, Theater Hopper, and "The 37's", I put my best effort into everything I work on, including disambiguation pages. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello fourthords, on Q9, methinks the answer you gave was more narrow than the intended question... or at least... more narrow than I read the question. Which is of course, not the same thing.  :-)   In the context of bangvoting at AfD, your answer was statistically correct, but the close is supposed to be an analysis of which arguments were policy-backed, and which arguments were WP:IDLI-based, right? Thus, at least theoretically, if that lone keep-bangvote was the only policy-backed contribution, then the close should be keep. As you already mentioned, quite rightly.

  But methinks that the focus on XfD was not implied in Minorview's question; I think they were asking more generally, about how *mainspace* can treat minority viewpoints (i.e. in real-life scholarship or news-reporting) fairly/equally, in terms of pillar two, using WP:RS as our standard for WP:NOTEWORTHY, and all that. If you wish, I'd like to hear your take on NPOV, and whether it functions properly with regard to mainspace, and in particular, whether you think bangvoting on article-talkpages (WP:POLLs or RfC-based) should determine who "wins" content-disputes. There are some structural special cases, where the end-result is not likely to be something everybody can be happy with; the main title of controversial articles, or the outcome at AfD, for instance. Those are winner-take-all situations. But is that the case in general, at AN/I, and in mainspace, and so on? Thanks for your time, and thanks for improving wikipedia; good luck with your RfA. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

If we're talking about the articlespace, no, I don't think that voting is the best way to ascertain the content of an article. There should be a rational and level-headed discussion among contributors that can hopefully come to a solution that both parties can agree on. However, in the event there can't be agreement, I think the minority viewpoint should be respectively represented in an article as there are reliable sources for it. If 99% of reliable sources or scientists or historians or whoever agree on something, but there is a reliable 1% that disagrees, then the article should focus on the 99% and mention the 1% proportionally. Does this make sense? Did I parse your question correctly? — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup, sounds good to me, thanks. In some cases, the minority view is so small, that it doesn't fit in the 'main' parent article, and instead gets shuffled off to some subsidiary article, especially if it is a controversial viewpoint. This kind of source-based slash discussion-based approach breaks down for article-titles, and in some ways for XfD, because the outcome of those is binary (one primary title ... either keep or delete) to a large extent. Thanks for the solid answer. I will also ping Minorview, because I think that was closer to the answer they were looking for, also, rather than the XfD-specific reply you originally gave. p.s. If your RfA this time around doesn't turn up roses, I would urge you to try again in 12 months, after having devoted half an hour every other night (or so) to wikipedia; you seem a strong candidate to me, and most of the opposes are complaining about lack-of-editcountitis. Folks expect admins around here to be fully WP:ADDICTED, fortunately or unfortunately.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I just wanted to wish you good luck with your RFA! Perhaps this cup of coffee will help give you the energy to answer the inevitable jumble of questions you'll soon be answering. The questions and votes in these RFAs make adminship seem so much more complex and important than it really is! But people always complicate things, it's their nature. Have a good one. INeverCry 18:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Your archives

Please consider making an archive thingy with searchbox at this talk page. I'm trying to check your past discussions and am having trouble. Many thanks, Anna F remote (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I found something that I think will work; let me know if that's what you're looking for. — fourthords | =Λ= | 14:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my goodness. I didn't even see the thing at the top before. Okay, thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons images for Theater Hopper

Hi Fourthords. I noticed that you uploaded a headshot of Tom Brazelton and an image of comic strip characters to Commons for the article Theater Hopper. Both images are properly attributed to Tom Brazelton as the author, but neither indicates any permission from him. Given that all content on his website and the artwork are copyrighted, I was wondering whether you obtained permission from Brazelton through an OTRS letter. I ask because, in my experience, it is fairly remarkable for a cartoonist to release all commercial rights to their artwork -- the upshot of a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. If this is the case, then it should be definitely made clear on the upload page where the permission can be found. Thanks -- — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I was in communication with Mr. Brazelton at the time, and he released them in an email I no longer have. In fact, the cast of characters was specifically drawn for our use. I can try to reengage the artist and get his confirmation in an email he can CC to the OTRS address. Would you be okay with leaving the images for the time being on my say-so that they're okay? — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I figured it was something like that. But, yes, we will definitely need a letter to OTRS from Tom Brazelton licensing his images to Commons under CC-BY-SA 3.0 (and specifically including the commercial application). (As outlined at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission) Once you know that he has agreed to send an e-mail, we can list them as {{OTRS pending}}. Until that time, it is best that Wikipedia not use the images. Thanks for your quick reply. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I've actually already heard back from Mr. Brazelton that he's contacted the Commons permission address. I'll add the OTRS pending template to the files at Commons. — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thanks -- — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

A Hello!

Hello, I'm Anupmehra. I was passing by RfA and found your self-nomination. I noticed in your introduction to community, you said, "[[..]] I’ve been editing Wikipedia since December 2004[..]". Did you mean as an IP editor? Your present username was registered on January 2011. Your previous username "pd_THOR" was registered on June 2008. May I know your all previous usernames? Thanks! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I partially figured it out. There's only two. I'm not sure why would "archive box" not appear on Monobook skin. Anupmehra -Let's talk!

Yeah, sorry, I don't know what to tell you. All I did was click on "Contributions" and then on "Oldest" to see when my first edits were. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)