User talk:Razr Nation

Razr Nation's archives Current discussion Go to 2016 Go to 2017-19 Go to 2022 Go to 2023

Protected Page Editor RfC

Can you make any tweaks you see necessary to it? I'd like to get this RfC going.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 12:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

bump—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I know I know :) I have been reading it but RL has caught me a bit busy. I will try to give it another read today, so that I could be ready for next week. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

FAC comment

Hi. Would you care to comment at my nomination here for the article Song of Innocence? A support, oppose, or any other comment to start the process would be appreciated. If not, no need to reply to this. Dan56 (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently travelling. When I'm back, I will be glad to give it a review. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Just what I think personally...

When you revert edits like what you did here, we try to think where would this go best? - in this case, I would have said to move it to Evidence Talk, but of course, each of us think differently. :d - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I was struggling to find a place to put them (I forgot that he could actually leave them on the evidence talk >.<), but his answers to me really discouraged me to provide him help in any way, so I dropped it. I will be unavailable for the next 8 hours or so, so you can go and add them yourself if you wish :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration: Argentine history

Hi, Hahc21. I added my statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Evidence. I don't know if it's larger than allowed. Once you read it, you'll understand that the issue is quite complex, mainly because it has stretched for four years and over several different articles. I'd like to ask you to keep it is as it is, since it will give a fair representation of what is the problem without the possibility of presenting diffs and information out of context. Thank you, --Lecen (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It actually is quite long, given that you only have 1000 words to write your statement, and that was why I collapsed it, so that the evidence page does not end being very long. Notwithstanding, I understand your point. You might want to write to one of the drafting arbitrators and tell them that you need all that evidence there, and ask for an extension of the word count. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I sent a message to Kirill Lokshin. Thank you very much. --Lecen (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Great. You're very welcome. If you need anything, just ask me :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

My statement on the evidence page is actually an enlarged and improved version of the statement I wrote on the arbitration main page. Could you somehow add a message to the arbitrators telling them to ignore the first statement (perhaps collapsing it entirely and providing a link to the second statement?) and focus solely on the second one (in the evidence page)? Thus they won't have the need to read two similar statements. --Lecen (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. The statement on the main case page, which is the original statement you wrote when the case was requested, is saved as-is for the purposes of archiving. The arbitrators will now look only to your statement in the evidence page when assessing the situation and reaching their conclusions :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thank you again. --Lecen (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I've (sort of) granted an extension of the evidence limits, subject to certain constraints; please see User talk:Kirill Lokshin#Arbitration: Argentine history for the details. I'd appreciate it if you could let the other parties know that the extension applies to them as well. Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] 21:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've informed the other two parties of this. Thanks! — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Kirill Lokshin told me that I should have one section dealing solely with the other party (with 1000 words at most) and another section dealing with the sources (with 2000 words at most). How do I know how many words are written at both? Could you add a bot to each? Or is there another way? --Lecen (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The bot recognizes and analyzes each section with a level two header. My recommendation is to use a level two header for the initial statement regarding the dispute (e.g. == Evidence presented by Lecen ==) and another level two section for the discussion about sources (e.g. == Source discussion presented by Lecen ==, or similar). That way, the bot will count the number of words and diffs under each section. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I have to comment that, because of a recent flood in Buenos Aires, my house is a disaster and there is a general blackout in several neighbours, including mine. I hope that I will be able to fill the evidence in the time required, but I must point in advance that I may need to ask for more time, and that I may not be immediately available for questions that may take place (I have already pointed that in my talk page). You can confirm that this is not an excuse here, here and here, among other sources: as you see, we are talking about the worst flood in Buenos Aires in the last century. I hope you'll understand. Cambalachero (talk) 13:41, 3 April 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) 23:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account, which contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AutomaticStrikeout, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and admit to it now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

TBrandley 02:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

March Grants News

Grants News

VOLUME 1

MARCH 2013

ISSUE 1

Eight projects have been awarded grants in this pilot round of the Individual Engagement Grants program. You can read more about them in our blog post. Many thanks to everyone who participated in this round! We look forward to seeing even more of your ideas and input in preparation for round 2, which begins on August 1st.

Grants News is brought to you by the Wikimedia Grantmaking Team. You can change your subscription to this update on the list.

Chopra FAC

Hey, pls comment on Chopra FAC. I have nominated it. Last time you weren't able to comment as the candidate was closed because of less inputs. I hope you will comment soon and you'll help in the fac.Prashant talk 19:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC/3

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC/3. 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) 11:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)