User talk:Ks0stm/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Happy 2014 from Cyberpower678


—cyberpower OnlineHappy 2014 — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—cyberpower OnlineHappy 2014 00:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!


Jianhui67 talk★contribs — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Calendar: Tamil New Year - Possible Vandalism

Dear KsOstm

One Thannilvan has been introducing arbitrary changes to at least three Wikipedia articles i.e. (i) Tamil calendar; (ii) Puthandu or Tamil New Year; and (iii) Thai Pongal. His changes are arbitrary. He provides no supporting evidence or references. He makes outlandish claims on the antiquity of literary texts.

He had earlier made sudden changes from an IP number but had started a Wiki account yesterday - January 3. It bears mention that the current entries on the Tamil calendar and Puthandu/Tamil New Year are extensively cited, entire sections of which are deleted by Thannilvan. Its his Point of View. Can he be tracked and temporarily blocked if possible?

Btw, Happy Gregorian New Year!

Best regards, Dipendra2007 (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

Discussion on changes to the format of the tornado table

Due to your membership in [[WikiProject Severe weather, I thought that the discussion going on there regarding proposed changes to the tornado table might interest you. If you are interested in participating in discussion, please feel free to join in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Severe weather#Reference column in the tornado table. All views are welcome, and please do not feel obligated to participate if you are not interested. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Center Line: Winter 2013

Volume 7, Issue 1 • Winter 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

Thanks

Thank you to Mediran, C678, and Jianhui67 for the holiday wishes. My apologies that I was too active in real life to respond in kind, and I hope that the holidays were as fun and enjoyable for you as they were for me. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

Mexico City

Can you have the article indefinitely pending changes? Some edits by IPs are good, but there have been reverts on edits by IPs, as well. --George Ho (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I extended the pending changes a week or two ago, but I forgot to mention it here. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom:Confusion about analysis of evidence

Per this talk page section I am confused because the last paragraph of ArbCom evidence talks about Arbitrators analyzing others' evidence; but on the Workshop non-Arbitrators are initiating discussion. Arbitration Guidance on Workshops (and obviously the workshop page itself through it's sectioning) make it look like anone can initiate an analysis. I Originally thought we had a choice of where to put it; now seeing Evidence page emphasizes Arbitrators I'm confused.

I put in a long analysis of serious problems with a users Evidence here and one admin said I should put it at Evidence. If you think I should put it on the evidence page instead, I can cut it down but probably won't be able to keep my evidence below 1000 words, though I'll try. Probably will go 2-300 words over, if that's OK. Advice welcome.

Also is my linking to Workshop analyses from the Evidence page, as I did, appropriate? If not, I'll remove it. (And obviously will remove it if I move all that material over.) Thanks. @Hahc21: Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, after a nap I figured out how to do a real short version and put it in evidence, replacing the "links to workshop" section. I do still link to the longer explanation at workshop. I do see several editors present "new evidence" there. I hope I'm complying now. Making guidelines a bit clearer, especially on the workshop page itself, would help. Thanks. 08:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I've had to focus on school the last few days and haven't gotten a chance to respond to your questions until now. Do you still need any questions addressed, or have they been answered in the intervening time? Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I have two important about possibly problematic rules and editor behavior issue questions here that probably should be addressed soon. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied there. Feel free to ping me again if you have any other questions, concerns, or if my answers were not clear. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you got the ping, since this is first time someone has said so :-) I did just add this question of something else going on: I see a couple of editors have been going to the talk pages of editors who commented here to discuss their evidence; some could see this as a pressure tactic. I have a feeling off arbitration talk page discussions, private email discussions, etc also are a no no. However, I did just note the other clerk said we can discuss evidence here. Confused. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

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)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

Welcome to the 2014 WikiCup!

Hello Ks0stm, 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 imminently, 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) 22:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Arbitration problem

Hi, I have a process question will ask on workshop talk page, but this is more immediate re: personal attacks:

  • here two editors mistakenly thought I was using “he” to identify a “she” when I just wasn’t clear I was talking about the “he”. They launched into personal attacks and claims of transphobia requiring yet another long explanation by me of why they were wrong.
  • Here I responded to a general discussion of Locus of case with too much detail such as might go into my proposal. I realized it was too detailed, saw a message from SRich it was and was cutting it down But there was an edit conflict when I tried to fix it and again I was attacked with a lot of accusations. Rather stressful. Is there something you can so about this? Thanks. Cc @Hanc21: User:Hahc21 Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I pinged you at one relevant question at talk; I added another one at talk workshop: Where and when to respond to accusations allegedly based on evidence. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Hello, Amazing job on deleting sock puppets talk pages, You Spent a lot of time and effort doing that, keep up the hard work! :D Happy Attack Dog (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of K-1 (Kansas highway)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article K-1 (Kansas highway) 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 TCN7JM -- TCN7JM (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of K-1 (Kansas highway)

The article K-1 (Kansas highway) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:K-1 (Kansas highway) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TCN7JM -- TCN7JM (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of K-1 (Kansas highway)

The article K-1 (Kansas highway) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:K-1 (Kansas highway) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TCN7JM -- TCN7JM (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

Please see this note

Re: Austrian economics evidence talk page. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of K-171 (Kansas highway)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article K-171 (Kansas highway) 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 CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of K-171 (Kansas highway)

The article K-171 (Kansas highway) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:K-171 (Kansas highway) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk: 50.204.66.34

Please review this user's talk page where you'll see 3 pieces of vandalism today alone following a final warning a few days ago. (Can't find appropriate reporting page right now). Thanks, Viva-Verdi (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

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. Smithsonian Institution 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. Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... 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. United States 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:

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)[reply]

Arbitration request motion passed

An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)

The motion reads as follows:

  • By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

Upcoming Wikimedia event in Lawrence Kansas!

You are invited to the Lawrence Wikipedia Tutorial on April 8, 2014 at the Lawrence Public Library. Experienced editors invited to help new users learn how to use the Wikipedia and build the community in Lawrence, Kansas. See Lawrence Wikipedia Tutorial.

James Michael DuPont (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

A typo in an open case's workshop

Howdy. I noticed a typo at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics/Workshop#Proposed_findings_of_fact_3. Immediately above that section there appears to be a typo that messes up the :Comment by others: line. I'm guessing it isn't a big deal, but I figured it couldn't hurt to point it out. I figured I'd tell you since you are one of the clerks for the case. I apologize if posting this here was a mistake. If it was, feel free to disregard this.--Rockfang (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the notice template near the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics/Evidence has a typo in it. "Any" has an extra "n" in it.--Rockfang (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Interstate 470 (Kansas)

Do you plan on returning to this? If you are unable to resume work on this by April 1, this nomination will be failed. --Rschen7754 22:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Rhodesia Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; 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) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup error

Hi there- this is just a quick note to apologise for a small but important mistake in the last WikiCup newsletter; it is not 64 users who will progress to the next round, but 32. J Milburn (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter

Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's United States ChrisGualtieri (submissions) who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included Rhodesia Cliftonian (submissions), who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and Washington, D.C. Caponer (submissions), who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from Canada Reid,iain james (submissions), tiger from Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and The Lion King from Minas Gerais Igordebraga (submissions). We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to Nepal Czar (submissions) and Indiana Red Phoenix (submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. 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) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

The Center Line: Spring 2014

Volume 7, Issue 2 • Spring 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of Imzadi1979[reply]

Dual Survival

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

I-470 ACR

I was wondering if you had any inclination toward coming back to finish Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Interstate 470 (Kansas). It's past its 6-month expiration date, so it can be failed at any time. If you'll come back to it, I won't close it; but if you don't want to come back to it, I'll close it. –Fredddie™ 03:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter

After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Scotland Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions) taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to Florida 12george1 (submissions) and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from Bartošovice v Orlických horách Cloudz679 (submissions) and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions).

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. 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 · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ks0stm/Archive_11&oldid=628358032"