Hi Hahc21. I wanted to let you know I've nominated this article, which you reviewed for GA status almost one year ago, for an FA review after having made some copyedits/rewrites and updating it with a new source.
This will be my first time making an attempt at the coveted FA rank and I figure a small and fairly simple article like CIPR is a good place to start. This article was also my first GA. Since then I've created 9 GAs and have 5 more in the queue for review, including my largest project yet on the History of public relations.
Hey! I have fixed the template on the article's talk page, since you used the incorrect one. The process is named FAC; FAR is for when an article is already an FA and its status is being reviewed :) Regards. — ΛΧΣ2121:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. There are a few things you need to do also. FAC is not like GAN, where you only put the template and a bot does the rest. You have to initiate the nomination page using the red link that appears in the FA banner in the article's talk page and then transclude that page into WP:FAC, at the top :) — ΛΧΣ2121:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: An editor reviewed one of my GA nominations. They said they would "begin the assessment soon" then passed it literally three minutes later. The GA instructions say in that case I can renominate it? But I'm not sure how. Do I just nominate it again as if it wasn't already passed? CorporateM (Talk) 03:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Difficult case. Leave me a link of the article here so that I can take a look and give you some suggestions as to what needs to be done. Since the article was passed, it cannot be added to the queue again. Or at least that's not the best course of action. What you can do is revert his talk page edit and request the /GAn subpage to be deleted so that it gets back to the queue, but let me take a look first. — ΛΧΣ2103:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! I'm sorry, i was way too busy to dedicate myself to your request. If you ever need something, you are welcome to ask :) — ΛΧΣ2115:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Hey, I was wondering if you are willing to design my user page and subpages (Articles/Achivements and Talk page) now? I do not care what you do. I just want a new face on my user page. Also, would you please correct the spelling and grammar and even re-worded! Please say Yes! I will do anything for you to say Yes! Please! I really hope you say Yes! — SoapFan12Talk21:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I'm sorry but I'm going to have to decline this humble request. As much as I'd like to, and like I previously said, I don't have enough time to invest in such things, and most of my wiki time is taken by the duties I have here. I could recommend several userpages you might like to model, but designing one for you, from scratch, would be way too time-consuming for me to take. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ2102:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate comments are not necessary but yes, usually, a nomination needs at least three net supports to be promoted. — ΛΧΣ2116:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Every valid oppose vote takes away one support vote. So, the number of net supports are those supports which weren't taken away. In other words: Support - Oppose: Net support. — ΛΧΣ2117:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! I think I could promote that list in the next few days. Your last support was today, so I'd like to see if more comments are made before promoting. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ2117:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you were the clerk for WP:ARBARG, you might want to tweak the implementation notes table, which shows proposed principles 3 and 3.1 failing (red background and four votes short), when in fact they passed 10-0. It looks like that was the last part of the proposed decision most of the arbs agreed upon, so it's probably just a case of the table not getting updated when the case closed. I'd fix it myself, but when it comes to arbitration pages, it's better to let the clerks deal with it. It's not a big deal, since the main case page clearly shows the principle as adopted, but nice colorful charts are often more memorable than text, and I actually had to go back and check the case page to make sure that principle 3 was included. Horologium(talk)13:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. They appear both as red because they were mutually exclusive, which meant that only one of them could pass, regardless of how many support votes they got. As you can see, the "Casting aspersions" principle was the one who passed, while the "Accusations without evidence" principle was disregarded. I will try to tweak the implementation notes to make sure this is clear, so to avoid further confusion. Thanks for the note :) — ΛΧΣ2116:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I was wondering if I could still receive some reccomadations from you about the models for user pages. Also, I thought you are a not able to nominate more than one FLC, unless the first one is closed? Howewver, I've seen you nominate three that are still ongoing. I am just curious, because I would love to nominate more than one at the same time. — SoapFan12Talk14:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. The userpages that come to my mind now are Status or IHelpWhenICan's fantastic userpage design. I'd tell you to use mine, but my code is way too complicated to be replicated and modified at will. Now, about FLC. You are permitted to have more than one FLC nomination opened if:
i) your current nomination has all comments addressed and a considerable number of support, and
ii) any delegate greenlights you to open a second or further nomination.
I usually don't need to meet the second clause since I am a delegate and I add up further nominations depending on how the queue's current state is. If there are many nominations, I wait. If there aren't, I go ahead and add another nom, since I always have like two or three lists awaiting to be nominated. — ΛΧΣ2116:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I understand! Thank you so much! However, are you aloud to at least nominated more than one list at the time when you asked a delegate? — SoapFan12Talk17:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. After asking a delegate, you are given explicit permission to nominate only one list. Then, you cannot nominate another list until your latest nomination has garnered sufficient support for promotion and all comments have been addressed. Although, you need to ask a delegate each time you desire to put another nomination in the queue. Unless, of course, you have no open nominations. — ΛΧΣ2117:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Even though, my list has not been up for an high level amount of days and its not ″dead″. However, like I have lots of extra time, I would not mind some comments? Please? I know you rather do you're duties of a delegate, but I would really would appreciated it! — SoapFan12Talk17:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Be patient. Usually, a list takes between 15 days to a month to be promoted if such list is well prepared and almost up to standard. Otherwise, it could take as much as two months to get a list promoted. Also, delegates and directors are commonly the last ones to leave comments. Giants2008 and The Rambling Man are the ones who usually go through almost every FLC, leaving some comments. Although, like me, they rarely support a list. We are users that prefer to stay neutral, and I believe that acting as such can be considered part of our job. — ΛΧΣ2118:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, thank you! I would like to have the permission of you if I can asks some users to comment, because last time I was accused of canvassing however I was not, I kept the request perfectly neutral. I know I should be patient but for personal reasons I can not wait a month or two. One reason is that, I am going back to school in like three weeks (and I am going to really concentrate in that period of time) and the last time I nominated a list without asking it took more than a month, and I am not willing to go through that. Also, the kind of lists I am nominated it is not what that users are often interested on reviewing. Please understand. — SoapFan12Talk19:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, of course. You are allowed to ask potential reviewers on their talk pages as long as you don't explicitly tell them to support your nomination ;) I know how frustrating is to wait a month to get a list promoted, and sometimes asking for a review is beneficial. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ2119:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I forgot to tell you that I archived your FLC. It spent a considerable amount of time without garnering consensus for promotion. However, you are welcomed to renominate as soon as you consider it plausible. As you might already know, this doesn't meant that the list is not up to standard, but that consensus was not achieved for promotion. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ2100:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The FLC was started only a month ago and I can count many FLCs that were open for more than 2 months with opposes listed. There are something like 4 FLCs currently that are older than that and some of them are not actually close to having consensus. Also, how long was the FLC here before it was closed (in comparison to other recent "non-consensus" closes)? Nergaal (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the FLC is that, as I read it, noody seemed to be willing to review it further. Godot gave his support, and the other user didn't care to go back. The third one is Rambling, which rarely supports. There were no comments left to be addressed and the review looked a bit stale to me. If you wish, I can put it back into the queue so that you can gather more reviewers, but if it doesn't in the next 15 days, I'll archive it again. Would this be fine for you? — ΛΧΣ2102:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, since my list has only receive a support, I was wondering if I could nominate a new list for a FL?
Also, I want to thank you for answering all my questions! You have been a great help! Thanks! Also, I have another list Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series and I was wondering if it is okay that some references have 1 source and the others have 2. Is it required for FL? — SoapFan12Talk22:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your list has only been there for barely five days, which means that it's still relatively new to add another one. I usually don't give permission until the latest candidacy has been up in the queue for at least ten days. Therefore, you'll have to wait another five days before I could grant you another slot. I hope you have no issues in waiting a bit more. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ2102:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with waiting a bit more. I have to admit, I do not like it, but I understand. Also, would you please answer my question about Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series? Here is it again ″For this article, I was wondering if it is okay that some there is some references that have 1 source and the others have 2. Is consistency required for FL? — SoapFan12Talk02:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. About that question: every candidacy is evaluated on its own merits. However, if there is a pattern among lists of the same type, usually reviewers require nominators to maintain such standard or to give good reasons why your way is better suited for your list. For example, my list List of Crystal Dynamics video games used a new template I designed specifically for that list and that varied significantly from the standard for video game lists.
I was challenged about the use of a different template, and I had to give good reasons to get the list promoted. However, since you are talking about sources, the number of sources is evaluated on a case by case basis. As I have previously said to you, this is a matter of consensus between reviewers and nominators, and there is not a set rule that every FL must explicitly follow, apart from the standard FL criteria, which says that lists must be properly sourced. — ΛΧΣ2102:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. I am not familiar with Emmy lists and I think that giving you an explicit "yes" or "no" to your question would not be the best course of action. As I said, if not one but all or most reviewers are fine with a single source, then that's okay. Otherwise you would have to build consensus with them with regards to that issue. Also, I have the impression that if I tell you that one source is okay, and then someone challenges the use of a single source in your FLC, you will point back to my comment as a way to address their concerns, like you did with the overlinking issue in your previous nomination. — ΛΧΣ2119:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I forgot to apologize about that. I am very sorry that I had to dragg you into the disscussion it. I am sincerly sorry and I hope you can accept my apologie. Furthermore, this time, I would of not drag into this, but I would not accept it, since it not part of the FL criteria, right? Again, I am very sorry. Sometimes, I feel when all odds are againts and no one is defending me, I dragged other people into it. Sorry, again! :( — SoapFan12Talk20:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies accepted :) However, regarding the use of a single source, as I said, it depends on the reviewers, and I can't give you a "yes" or a "no". Cheers. — ΛΧΣ2121:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, in an edit on 7 August, you promoted 4, archived 2, including my nomination for List of colonial governors of New Jersey (See: [2]). There were several supports, and other comments (from The Rambling Man who never seems to support) that were adequately and fully resolved. Further, there are no closing comments or the typical proper closing of the review (i.e. according to the article talk page, the template is still there, and and the FLC nothing stating it was archived, etc.). The only reason I know the review is over is because it's now missing from the FLC page...and despite the review seems to lack the attributes of being properly closed (i.e. changing templates), I can only assume for some inexplicable reason it's been archived.
So, can you point to me any (1) "actionable objections that have not been resolved," when the review shows each suggestion that was appropriately addressed and/or satisfied or (2) how there was no "consensus for promotion" when there were 4 supports, resolved comments, and one excellent suggestion that is not actionable at this time (which requires a lot of work) or mandatory (since it's largely aesthetic). If WP:FLC states that "the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support," I fail to see how the article was not promoted. Apparently that sentiment is meaningless.
I would appreciate an explanation, because as I see it, the FLC process was a waste of time if after all that work sufficiently resolving or addressing each suggestion, it gets archived. I doubt I'll nominate another list, the experience has been less than enjoyable (at least with FAC, there's an understandable outcome.)--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, looks that I archived the incorrect one >.< that one was meant to stay on the queue. But now that I removed it, I will move it from the failed to the promoted log, since there is a consensus in there for promotion. My sincere apologies. — ΛΧΣ2115:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ColonelHenry: Actually, I checked the logs again and your list is promoted. The bot has yet to update the talk page template and add the featured star to your list. My apologies if the process was not smooth and enjoyable, but don't worry, your list has not been archived. — ΛΧΣ2115:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Hahc21, I was wondering if I can add a new FL, since my list has 3 supports. I know you said that I need to be patient and wait for few more days until the 10 days has pass, but I can't wait any longer, I have two more lists that need to be nominated before September. I am sorry but waiting for me is not opition but if you can find another strong argument why I should not nominate one or two other lists, say it. I am sorry if I am going of rough, strong, rude etc.... I am sorry but I really need to do it. — SoapFan12Talk19:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Giants promoted three lists two hours ago and I plan to archive some soon, I grant you one slot by now. So you can feel free to go and add another nomination to the queue, given that (also) your current nomination is passing. However, I can't let you add more than one nomination at a time. And don't worry, there is nothing rough in your comment, although you need to learn that, like all processes, there are some timings that cannot be bypassed, and FLC is one of those places where timing cannot be modified at will. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ2119:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Rayabhari and a wikifriend are working on a new article about an academic who was based in Venezuela. I gave them a bit of advice here and almost as soon as I hit that button I remembered you! Any chance of you helping them out a little? They're enthusiastic and willing to learn. Once they've got the sourcing sorted out, I can help them tidy up the article - WP:MOS etc. Thanks, and no worries if you are too busy elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I will look into that as soon as I can. Maybe I could take a look this weekend. Thanks for the notice! — ΛΧΣ2122:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hahc21, I'm going to need two weeks to organize diffs and construct my written arguments. There is a major holiday weekend coming up from 8/31 to 9/2 in the USA, and I doubt the arbitrators will be spending much time on cases over the holiday. Let me know if you and John Carter are ok with a filing date of Sept. 3rd. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea when John is planning to file the case. Actually, I am unaware if he has already drafted the request. However, as commented on the Clerks talk page, the Committee won't accept two cases so closely related. Therefore, I think that you two should come to some sort of agreement about who will and how the request will be made. — ΛΧΣ2120:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Hahc21, Thank you so much for answering all my questions and I was wondering if you can answer another one? Its that in the future I would like to nominate Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Talk Show Entertainment for an FL. But I am not sure if it would reach that status since it currently last six years. Also, if you could give me pre-FL commesnts? That would be awesome! — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 02:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I really do not appreciate this. I have sent you this message for a long time and I have seen you do a lot edits in the past few days and Don't expect me to believe you had not had time since you answered another user's messager, who sent is message after me. Can you explain this? I am very hurt by this. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 23:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OMG I missed this one. Sorry, I did not notice this message, and that was why I did not provide you with an answer. I am usually very busy so if you see that I don't answer in 24 hours, feel free to ping me again. I always have a lot of stuff in my mind and some of them get lost in the way. Reading your first comment, I don't know what you mean by "it currently last six years". Could you elaborate? — ΛΧΣ2123:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay and There's nothing to forgive. I intend to get frustrated when some one does that to me. So Im sorry the way that I spoked. It means that the award lasts six years but still is ongoing. Furthermore, can you answer the rest of my questions? Also, I saw that you archive lists but you did not do the same for others that should be promoted or not? Just curious. :) — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 23:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with it lasting six years. If it were two instead of six, maybe that would be a problem, but it isn't, I think. However, it depends on the reviewers, though. I am not sure I could leave comments now, I am dealing with some matters in other wikis and the case I'm clerking is now on its final stage so it will keep me busy; maybe later. Now, about the last one, I scan FLC from bottom to top and promote/archive accordingly. In this case, I picked up the two that were ready to be archived. It varies though. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ2116:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. We usually err on the side of caution, and I prefer to wait a bit longer to see if somebody else comments. Having three supports doesn't make a list ready. Having all the issues solved does, and sometimes lists with say, 7 supports, still have issues to be addressed. — ΛΧΣ2117:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would like to know if I could nominate another list, even if I have two ongoing? This FLC has been promoted. I would like to know if I can nominated another list even if I have one ongoing that has been up for 22 days? — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 03:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Giants promoted one of them like an hour ago or so, I think you can feel free to add up another nomination to the queue. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ2104:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:
Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
Adam Cuerden (submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.
This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.
Finally, the usual notices: 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 reduce 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) and The ed17 (talk • email) 06:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a weird request, I know, but with you being an arb clerk, and your having offered someone else help in filing a case, I wonder whether you might be willing to review User:John Carter/Ebionites 2 evidence to see which information is most relevant, and potentially most useful, to the arbitrators for inclusion in a request for arbitration. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One, no rush. Two, I regret the desktop needs repairing, but I've been there myself, so I understand. It is also worth noting that NYB had tentatively approved reopening earlier. And, yes, even though I iz admin, that doesn't mean that I am necessarily the best person to prepare a summary for presentation to ArbCom, particularly given the amount of material there is to go through. I have a feeling that the material from the second Ebionite mediation, which so far as I can tell failed because of stonewalling, probably needs some mention, but I have no idea how much weight or links to give in any of this material, not being good at this sort of thing myself. Sorry for the additional work for you, but thanks for the offer of assistance. If there is other material which you think needs inclusion, or if you think that there isn't enough evidence for a case, feel free to indicate that as well. Also, FWIW, I have said from the beginning if any admin told me I should withdraw my adminship, I would. Just want you to know that you are included in that as well, if that is one of the conclusions you come to. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John Carter: I appreciate the last line of your latest post, although I doubt I would ever have to ask you that :) Now, about your draft, I've only checked a part since it's a bit large, but I'll get to it fully this weekend. I know that this is an important matter to you and thus I cannot delay it. However, since this will be your first(?) case request, I think that briefing you with the next information is useful. So, when requesting a case, several things must be kept in mind:
i) why the dispute needs Arbitration and not a lesser dispute resolution process;
ii) which has been the outcome of previous resolution attempts, and how do you expect the Committee to address them;
iii) provide a brief but concise explanation of the dispute, including all involved parties and talk pages, as well as relevant diffs. This must be very concise; if the case is accepted, more leeway for evidence is provided.
iv) evidence that the dispute is unresolved and still ongoing must be provided. I know that this dispute was brought before to the Committee, and the then-members of it accepted the case. However, you need to show evidence that the dispute is still happening. This is a key element, because many arbs could decline arguing that the dispute is not relevant or disruptive anymore.
Mentioning that a previous case request was accepted is also important, because it shows that this dispute is Arbitration-worthy. However, in this request, you must focus on what has happened since that request and try not to repeat the arguments that were already presented back then. In short, stick to the main facts of the dispute, show that a previous case request with evidence exists, then expand on recent developments that support a need for Arbitration, even several years later. Also, a good question to make is: do we really want an Arbitration? Results from Arbitration cases are always unpredictable, and all parties should be aware that everybody can be sanctioned in a case. That said, I expect to be back to you soon :) — ΛΧΣ2122:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of additional data, including I think a fair evidence of recent history of misrepresenting evidence and (I think) rather ridiculously making unspported statements which are consistent with someone trying to misuse wikipedia to promote the beliefs of an otherwise non-notable group. And, yes, unfortunately, as per previous instances with other editors like User:Lung salad and others, I think the real pressing needs here are (1) discretionary sanctions on early Christianity, similar to those on Scientology and other topics, and also getting (2) some sort of guidelines from experienced editors, hopefully not overwhelming related to the topics of religion, "beliefs" in general, and other similar related topics. From previous dealing with ArbCom I tend to think the best, and maybe the only, way to have that happen is through an ArbCom recommendation for such, and the only way for that to happen is for ArbCom to request it. So, yeah, even though I admit I have become far less than objective about a certain editor who wildly vacillates between preening arrogance and paranoia, and that my disgust for his behavior is clearly obvious, yeah, I think we need ArbCom. John Carter (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I was able to grasp a bit of that problem back at the Clerks page. I'll be back to you then when I finish my reading. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ2123:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. John Carter: I have read the entire page as well as checked another page you mentioned there and I think they are pretty good. Of course, for the purposes of filing the case, newest events will have priority. Have you started a draft of the case request, or do you want me to help you with it? — ΛΧΣ2116:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have still have to assemble some of the most recent conduct questions, including what seem to me fairly clear problems with behavioral matters. Like I said before, currently, I am only spending a few days per week actively editing on site here, spending the rest of the days gathering material for pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Encyclopedic articles. Let me gather the relevant information on Thursday, after my short work week ends (3 days, 12 hours apiece - hey, it's at a hospital and it is a living for now anyway), and add it and get back to you on Thursday. John Carter (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about not getting back to you on Thursday. I will try to assemble a draft statement, specifically including recent history of inappropriate conduct, tomorrow, for you to look over at your convenience. I'll try to link to it here. John Carter (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay. ArbCom is getting full and full of stuff, and now with the Chelsea Manning request it will be worse. Actually, I was about to ask you both to wait until the end of September when the Tea party movement and Infoboxes cases are gone to pursue arbitration, but you have the last word :) — ΛΧΣ2101:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is sometimes very funny how things come together. Here I am...going thru my list of supporters, thanking them, and the next editor, Jianhui67 mentions Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy which peeked my interest since I am searching for something in the realm of vandalism hat will train me for a future RfA attempt. And there you were in the list of available trainers. Another peculiarity is that I've thanked about 30 editors this evening and you are the only one to respond. Its the Fundamental Law of contingency at work. I would be honored if you could train me.```Buster Seven Talk04:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I accept :) My previous two trainees went missing, I think, and I consider that I can help you polish those little details that were brought at your RfA, even beyond just vandalism. We can start whenever you consider it advantageous for you. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ2104:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! It seems you've been more or less involved with the albumchart template.[3] I just created a template for year-end charts for albums and it seems that my knowledge of technology ends here. Could you help me fix it? :)
All I know for sure are the rankings in Finland and the US, so my idea of the manual is as follows:
just enter Billboard200 (or USA, US or United States) in the first parameter and the position in the second and the year at year= and you're done (plus accessdate=, of course)
IFPI Finland publishes separate lists for domestic best-sellers[4] and foreign best-sellers,[5] so in the reference there should be a text like The first is the list of the best-selling domestic albums of {{{year}}} in Finland, the second is that of the foreign albums: and then a new row with an asterisk (*) for the link to the first list and then a new row with an asterisk for the link to the second list. (plus add accessdate=, of course)
Actually, I could sort it out for the Finnish albums, but let me know if you have time to make the template work for other regions as well. :) -- Puisque (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a talk back a few days ago, just posting again. I would like to resume the vandalism academy, sir. I have read the required materials. Thank you for your time :) EzPz (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you volunteered to work on the WikiProject Report for our interview with Wikiproyecto Fútbol. I have drafted some questions for the interview. Feel free to tweak these questions or add more. We'll need to translate the questions into Spanish and then invite editors using something similar to this standard message. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for your help! –Mabeenot (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hahc21, I previously mentioned I would be ready to file a case by 9/3. I'm willing to wait a few more days for people to return from their summer holiday. However, the probability a case won't be filed by the end of this week is about 1 / the age of the universe. Therefore, it would be wise for your client to prepare his opening statement. Ignocrates (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know about this. Since all the issues that were commented on the discussion appeared to been resolved, does that mean the discussion was closed as no consensus. 和DITOREtails00:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I've "returned" to Wikipedia after a longish absence, and will be actively editing for the foreseeable future. This may seem a pushy request, but I would be interested in joining the list of potential trainees for Arbcom clerkships. I'm fine if this can't happen, but would be interested in helping out if I can or, eventually, in becoming a clerk. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was reading it and found several things to note in the nomination. I will try to have it ready tonight. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ2118:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do I check an article's size for DYK, on the necessaties it has to have more than 1,500 characters of prose, however, it says to check by something I don't understand, so could you help me please? Thanks. Lucky102 (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening sir! :) I have a question about new page patrol I was hoping you could help me out with . . . as I've been going through the new page patrol more recently, and frankly I think it's more challenging than recent changes patrol, but anywho . . . I've come across a number of pages with references to websites that are not in English at all. A specific example of what I mean is XMU_UAV. What would you do a as a new page patroller?
AstroChemist: References that are not in english are allowed. Usually I use spanish sources for the music articles I work on, since english sources are unexistent. However, if you are doubtful about the reliability of the sources, you can ask a user who speaks the language to do a quick check, or use Google Translate to see what comes up. Cheers! — ΛΧΣ2119:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I see from his User talk page that you've been mentoring User talk:AstroChemist on counter vandalism. This editor seems to be having some problems understanding what the various deletion rationales actually mean, as I other editors have been pointing out. My recent message to him here got this in reply. I'll leave it to you to decide if your mentorship of him should be widened to include deletion criteria and NPA. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm contacting you about a study that I'm running with TheOriginalSoni exploring newcomer mentorship activities in Wikipedia. I'd like to ask you a few questions about your interactions with newcomers and to explore how a tool like WP:Snuggle might make your work easier. The interview and demo session will take 30 minutes to an hour depending on how much time we spend discussing things. If you're interested, let me know. If not, disregard this message and I won't bother you again.
