No, I'll be renominating it soon though. I believe the two weeks is about up. Also, is it possible to request to have someone not review an FAC? I don't find their reviews to be helpful (and this isn't the first time I've dealt with them at FAC)? Example, he'll cite something and ask if I see anything wrong with it and then doesn't really help at all to fix it. --
JDC808♫05:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Well, you cannot avoid somebody to revire an FAC, but you can point out there that this person is being completely unhelpful and is delaying the review process, etc. Let me know when you put it up again at FAC to see if I can review it for you. Cheers. —
ΛΧΣ2114:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Time to bring back BED's?
Hey, long time no talk!
So I have bored on Wiki for a bit and I've been doing some field work to see how the Good Article RFC (which was supposed to bring in ideas to replace Backlog Drives) has worked out. My conclusion? It has failed. Even though I should support the Recruitment Centre (because I created it), its time to admit that it is failing miserably. Improving instructions and creating tabs? Done...but has made no affect. There are over 400 nominations and nothing is working, bottom line. I think we should give a BED another shot. What do you think? (I'll run it, I just need ideas on how to make it as effective as possible)--
Dom497 (
talk)
19:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)reply
@
Dom497: -facepalm- How could I forget... Yes, I think we can plan one by now. I won't be as available as before to participate as an active reviewer but I think I can, again, take the role of coordinator and set everything up. Might we start a discussion at
WT:GAN? —
ΛΧΣ2114:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Cool. I can volunteer to be a "part-time coordinator" (got lots of school!) but I don't know yet. Anyway, what would the discussion be for? To see if people want to do it?--
Dom497 (
talk)
22:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Yeah; mostly to make sure everyone is aware and willing to participate. I'd also be willing to revisit the rules we drafted and approved during the previous Drives RfC to see if some changes are needed. —
ΛΧΣ2102:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)reply
I've started the disscussion. Also, just a thing between you a me, in the dissucssion I avoiding using the word "elimination" so it doesn't advertise that the backlog needs to be eliminated (one of the flaws in previous drives; it needs to be reduced). With that, I think we should just call the drives "Backlog Drives" from now on (I know, something this small probably won't do anything but is worth a shot).--
Dom497 (
talk)
00:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Hi Hahc21- I try to avoid making assumptions - in FP, specifically the set of fractional currency that was just promoted (and the set of FRBN currency which might get enough support), am I correct in believing that each individual image of the set counts as a piece of featured content for the Steeplechase? If this is the case then I will officially enter now. I have three more days to nominate eligible material. Thanks in advance for your input.-
Godot13 (
talk)
13:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Hmmm, this is something I will have to look at. There are a lot of images, but idividual work was needed for each one of those right? If so, they could be counted idividually, since all of them became individual featured pictures that happened to be taken and promoted at the same time. Cheers. —
ΛΧΣ2104:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Godot13: Hmmm. Content nominated until 20 november is eligible. This means nominated at FAC, FTC, FLC, etc, not at the Steeplechase. You can submit pieces to the Steeplechase if they were nominated before November 20, and promoted before December 15 :) I hopes this helps. —
ΛΧΣ2103:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)reply
SchroCat: Thanks, I will leave my comments there now. I apologize for not being active right now at FLC, but I had other commitments to attend and I wanted to let you all handle it while I was busy :] —
ΛΧΣ2112:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)reply
No problems at all: it has probably been a good thing, as it's allowed Crisco and I to work through a few procedures as and when they have come up. It's been good to get a few of them under the belt to start with! Cheers -
SchroCat (
talk)
12:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Hi, Rschen pointed out that you too have produced a public voter guide as well as being an ArbCom clerk. It's a little awkward, isn't it, the prospect of clerking for some arbs next year who might have been voted onto the committee against your critical advice to oppose? What do you think? I came in for fierce criticism in 2011 for saying on my talk page whom I recommend voters support, while covering the election for the Signpost. Since then I've had to think carefully about saying anything positive or negative about individual candidates.
Tony(talk) 05:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Tony1: I actually think otherwise. Being a clerk is a very different job than being an arbitrator, and there is no conflict between being such and being a guide writer because what the clerks do at arbitration is far from what arbitrators do, to some respect. Also, when I write a guide, my votes represent the suitability for the candidate to be an arbitrator, and such comments are not about the user itself but about their candidacy. For example, last year, I went neutral on T. Canens and Salvio, and since their election, they have been good arbitrators. Finally, it is also some sort of tradition I have created for myself, and I believe it won't be fair to stop writing my guide just because I became a clerk. If I ever run for ArbCom, though, then it might be a different story. —
ΛΧΣ2112:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)reply
This is one of the better ArbCom guides. Even though I don't agree with all of Hanc's positions, I'd say that I agree with roughly 80% of his and value his insights on all. I see no
Hatch Act problem that keeps him from creating this. He gives a very good history and summary to help everyone understand the context, and I look forward to him COMPLETING his reasons for his position on each candidate. Hanc, don't feel you are limited to 9, as this isn't your voting record, it's who you think would do a good job. We voters can note you like more than 9 -- there are a couple people you support that I do not and some you are neutral on that you actually seem to want to support,. You also haven't explained your reason for supporting/opposing a few candidates so I'd be interested to know why.
Montanabw(talk)18:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Guide facts
Regarding your guide, I don't see how stating facts would be in conflict with being a clerk. - Factual corrections: the last name of
Andy is Mabbett (not Mabbet). Rlevse is not "now"
PumpkinSky, there is no PumkinSky now, and I miss him. - I ask all candidates how they look at one fact, draw my conclusions and invite everybody else to do the same. It's quite an interesting range already between "The edit is Andy Mabbett putting an infobox in a musician's biographical article." and "A few things. First, a small quasi-infobox at the bottom of the page labelled "metadata" is converted to what appears to be a standard infobox at the top right, as per most articles. Second, the image that was originally outside the box but at the top right gets accidentally fouled up. Of course, it seems to be restoring it basically to a state from the day before, when it was turned into a "metadata" box. It also appears to finally stop a somewhat ridiculous-looking period of edit-warring...or at least fighting over what should have been a braindead application of the
WP:MOS regarding infoboxes." - If you get "almost banned" - as you correctly state in your guide - for stopping edit warring and restoring a version that followed the manual of style, something should change. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
12:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Thanks, I have made corrections to his name (I knew I was not spelling it correctly). Now, about that, the Infoboxes case is a very complicated dispute that came with a ver complicated decision. I will recuse myself from giving opinions about it (mostly because apart from being a clerk, I clerked that case) but I am aware that many people was uncomfortable with the proposed decision and the outcome. —
ΛΧΣ2112:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)reply
In past Backlog Drives, the goal was to reduce the backlog of Good article nominations. In the upcoming drive, another goal will be added - raising as much money as we can for the Wikimedia Foundation. How will this work? Well, its pretty simple. Any user interested in donating can submit a pledge at the Backlog Drive page (linked above). The pledge should mention the amount of money the user is willing to donate per review. For example, if a user pledges 5 cents per review and 100 nominations are reviewed, the total donation amount is $5.00.
At the time this message was sent out, two users have submitted pledges for a total of 8 cents per review. All pledges, no matter how much money, are greatly appreciated. Also, in no way is this saying you must make a pledge.
Woah, that's a lot of hard work! I preferred using Excel because it was way easier to make the table there. Good work :] —
ΛΧΣ2116:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Universal Triple Crown
Hi Hahc- I filled out nominations for two more Universal Triple Crowns. If an awarded image is further featured by additional wikis, can I add the additional wikis (with supporting links in the style that already exists) myself, or should I send you the links to add, just for future reference. Many thanks-
Godot13 (
talk)
08:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
That was a terrible review. I'd go to
WT:GAN and request a rereview. The lede is adequate for an article of that length, and your COI should mean nothing if the article itself is actually neutral. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk)
04:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)reply
CorporateM: Indeed, that was a terrible review. Ugh, I hate it when we have users doing that. I would re-review it myself but I won't have time to do so until thursday maybe. If you are willing to wait, I'd lovely do it. In the meantime, however, you can post at
WT:GAN, because I don't want more of those reviews out there. I forgot we were on Backlog Drive time. —
ΛΧΣ2104:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)reply
And I will add it to the list of things I am grateful to you for. Hopefully you accept gratitude as currency for your assistance.
user:Drmies insists on cash fees and he is pricey! (inside joke)
CorporateM (
Talk)
05:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I know you too have seen that
VoxelBot has grown increasingly unreliable. The operator of the FLC/FAC task has not directly responded to any post about it since 09 July! This was barely tolerable when we were asking for improvements, but now that I can't even get the task restarted, things have to change; even a new operator running the same unimproved bot code would be preferable to the current void. I noticed that you said last month you had approached someone else about taking over the task. Has anything come of that? I am prepared to approach someone myself if not. Thanks.
Maralia (
talk)
14:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Maralia: I asked
Legoktm if he could rewrite a better bot and take over the task. He said he could, but we haven't talked ever since. I will ask him again and, well, meanwhile, I will close the FLCs manually. No other options we have. Cheers. —
ΛΧΣ2115:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)reply
That's who I was planning to ask; just didn't want to duplicate efforts. I will take it up on his talk page if you haven't beaten me to it already. I have a copy of the current bot code, so getting at least that up and running should be fairly trivial.
Maralia (
talk)
15:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I have finals next week, so I can't spend any time on it until after then. I've looked at the existing code and it's not in a state where it can easily be re-used IMO. I would want to fix up a lot of it. So I can prioritize properly (there are a ton of other things I'd like to get done... ;)), how important is this bot to the FAC/FLC process?
Legoktm (
talk)
08:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The bot is critical. It is a vital part of the promoting/closing process and without it FLC/FAC will be very damaged :[ —
ΛΧΣ2103:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Well, then all promoted and/or archived FLCs won't be properly closed. FL stars won't be added, ArticleHistory's won't get updated, and the lists won't appear as if they were (not ) promoted. —
ΛΧΣ2103:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)reply
This is a note to let the main editors of
Homework (Daft Punk album) know that the article will be appearing as
today's featured article on December 27, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask
Bencherlite (
talk·contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 27, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
Homework is the debut
studio album by French
electronic music duo
Daft Punk(
Thomas Bangalter and
Guy-Manuel de Homem-Christo pictured in 2010), released in January 1997 on
Virgin Records. Homework's success brought worldwide attention to
French house music. According to The Village Voice, the album revived house music and departed from the
Eurodance formula. The duo produced the tracks without plans to release an album. After working on projects that were intended to be separate singles over five months, they considered the material good enough for an album. Homework charted in 14 different countries, peaking at number 150 on the United States
Billboard 200 and at number 8 on the
UK Albums Chart. By February 2001, the album had sold more than two million copies worldwide and received several
gold and
platinum certifications. Overall Homework received positive critical response. The album features singles that had significant impact in the
French house and global dance music scenes. These include the US BillboardHot Dance/Club Play number-one singles "
Da Funk" and "
Around the World", the latter of which reached number 61 on the
Billboard Hot 100. (Full article...)
I really appreciate your willingness to mentor others. Recently, I completely revised the WIKIPEDIA biographical entry on me written by another user. the entry is titled
D. Shelton A. Gunaratne. I want you to check whether my revised entry meets the criteria for GA? Are the inline citations and references good enough and authoritative? Does the article look unbiased? Gunarat 05:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
@
Gunarat: Hey! Thanks for the barnstar :) I have taken a look at the article and it still needs some work before it can reach good article status. Although I understand your desire to touch the article (it's about you), I think it would be best if another editor finish the revision before it can proceed the GA-way. I would be willing to review it a bit and make it compliant with all of our policies, but I'm not sure I'd have time to do all the necessary work to make it to GA. Cheers. —
ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc2106:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the message. I'm glad to be done with the process, all the more so since in the nearly 10 years I've been here I've never had to bother with an arbitration request as an actual party to it until now. Hopefully, though, the resulting handout will settle the issue(s) enough so that the long term editors come back to the material again. Thanks for everything, and Merry Christmas.
TomStar81 (
Talk)
03:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Sue Rangell✍ ✉ is wishing you a
MerryChristmas! 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
Merry Christmas, 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 cheer by adding {{
subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
—
cyberpowerOnlineMerry Christmas is wishing you a
MerryChristmas! 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
Merry Christmas, 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 cheer by adding {{
subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks Harold for the Holiday spirit, I appreciate it! Remember a year ago when you suggested
Latin American music to be moved Latin music? Instead of that, I gave the article a much needed overhaul and left a note on the talk page to see if there's any confusion. Thanks again!
Erick (
talk)
23:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Seasonal greetings
Merry Christmas and best wishes for a happy, healthy and productive 2014!
Pratyya(Hello!) is wishing you a
MerryChristmas! 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
Merry Christmas, 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 cheer by adding {{
subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
~
TheGeneralUser(talk) is wishing you a
MerryChristmas! 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
Merry Christmas, 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 Christmas cheer by adding {{
subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Feliz navidad, y gracias Harold por tus deseos. Espero que la pases genial en estas fiestas y compartas con los que más quieres. Muchos saludos desde Colombia y un abrazo fraterno de parte de la familia Wikipedia Latin Music.
Luis Nuñez (
talk)
18:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Oh, I see. I'm sure it will be FA soon ;) And woah, they look pretty interesting. Did not see them before :) —
ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc2114:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)reply
All three DYK were interesting,
A Boy was Born spiced by needing protection (a first for me). There were enough people thinking that our article title should not follow the published capitalisation by the composer (1934) but our "longstanding" MoS - that's what we have now, the article title contradicting the image from the score, - but worse: some thought the published title (as it appears in all sources I used) should not be mentioned once: that's why it needed protection. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
14:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Hello Hahc21, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition will begin at midnight tonight (UTC). 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)
17:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)reply