April

DYK for Püssi

On 1 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Püssi, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Siemens is in Püssi? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Püssi. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Amanda Clement

[edit]

On 4 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Amanda Clement, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Amanda Clement. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note

[edit]

This conversation is over. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sven Manguard. I respect you immensely, but you should note that I was indeed very willing to do anything it took to collaborate with the investigation just to show that the possibility that I am Kalki is exactly zero. See here. Besides, I had also provided lots of personal evidence that I am Daniel, a college student, Go player, etc., etc., and most definitely not Kalki, so I would very much like to suggest that you familiarize yourself with the case first, before commenting on it as you did here. Respecting other people's reputation is important. Thanks, and I do hope we meet again in the future. Yours, DanielTom (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] I appreciate you coming here to explain your opinion, however demanding an apology is something that I personally have strong views on, and I will always speak out against it when I or one of my friends is subjected to such a demand. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] You are welcome to defend your "friend", even though he happened to make a baseless accusation against me, and was proved wrong. My point was quite a different one. It's not just my "opinion" that you should take the time to inform yourself before making comments condemning others. Yours truly etc., DanielTom (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Three things: 1) proved wrong ≠ baseless accusation but more importantly... 2) Checkuser coming back as unrelated ≠ proved wrong 3) Checkuser coming back as unrelated ≠ baseless accusation You can either accept that this happened and move on, or you can continue to press the issue and be bitter about it. Only one of those two options is going to get you anywhere. The other is just going to piss people off, as you can see by the beginning of this comment. Look, it sucks that this happened to you, but if all you do is continue to rub it in people's faces, all you're ever going to be known as is "that person accused of sockpuppetry", and that's not somewhere you want to be. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Sir, I honestly don't appreciate your insinuations. And I'm very sorry, but it was you, not me, who kept coming back to the sock puppetry case. Maybe if I repeat myself for the third time you will actually listen to what I've said?—— I would very much like to suggest that you familiarize yourself with the case first, before commenting on it... My point was quite a different one. It's not just my "opinion" that you should take the time to inform yourself before making comments condemning others. Now, you yourself admitted that you made your comment with "no knowledge of the specifics of this case", and that's exactly what bothers me. It would be FINE if you were just "defending" your "friend" from having to apologize to me (huuuuu), which to his credit he did, but no, you didn't stop there. You stated: just because a checkuser came back negative does not mean that two people are actually unrelated. Checkuser results can be fooled, and behavioral evidence can override a 'negative' checkuser when the behavioral evidence is strong enough. That's of course true, but what exactly were you trying to insinuate? I assumed in good faith, because you weren't familiar with the case, that your suggestion — that I of all people could have fooled the Checkuser — was just misguided, ignorant of my conduct, and not malicious, since you apparently didn't even bother looking at the piles of personal evidence that I had voluntarily and publicly presented before you made that comment, or even at the statements in the Case page where I made it very clear that I was willing to do everything/anything to prove that I am who who I say I am — Daniel Tomé, Portuguese, etc. etc. —, and even suggested showing my Passport or whatever it took to prove beyond any doubt that those who shamelessly accused me of lying were wrong. (Now, you already know the results of the investigation.) I do hate to come back to this sockpuppetry issue again, but let's be clear. As you can see above, I started the very beginning of this discussion by reminding you that I had been very willing to do anything it took to collaborate with the investigation just to show that the possibility that I am Kalki is exactly zero. Indeed, I went out of my way to do just that. And yet you just ignored it all and — once again — repeated that what's "more [important]" is that "Checkuser coming back as unrelated ≠ proved wrong". Well, of course! JESUS. Why do you insist pointing that out? What are you suggesting exactly? It's hard for me to keep assuming good faith when your comments appear so deliberately malicious. I requested that I be checked exactly to stop having to put up with people making such baseless, unfounded and dishonest insinuations about me. Please, don't do it again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Your complete inability to let things drop speaks poorly of your ability to interact with others, and thus survive on this project. I was never talking to you on Cirt's page in the first place, I was talking to Cirt. I engaged you on this page because I thought your initial comment warranted a response. I responded to your second comment on this page because it was just plain wring. However you continued to press and press, and we've long since passed the point in which meaningful conversation could happen. At this point I'm not going to read anything else you post - I'm just going to remove it - and I would very much appreciate it if you stay off of my page. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is over. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sven Manguard. I respect you immensely, but you should note that I was indeed very willing to do anything it took to collaborate with the investigation just to show that the possibility that I am Kalki is exactly zero. See here. Besides, I had also provided lots of personal evidence that I am Daniel, a college student, Go player, etc., etc., and most definitely not Kalki, so I would very much like to suggest that you familiarize yourself with the case first, before commenting on it as you did here. Respecting other people's reputation is important. Thanks, and I do hope we meet again in the future. Yours, DanielTom (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you coming here to explain your opinion, however demanding an apology is something that I personally have strong views on, and I will always speak out against it when I or one of my friends is subjected to such a demand. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to defend your "friend", even though he happened to make a baseless accusation against me, and was proved wrong. My point was quite a different one. It's not just my "opinion" that you should take the time to inform yourself before making comments condemning others. Yours truly etc., DanielTom (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three things:

1) proved wrong ≠ baseless accusation

but more importantly...

2) Checkuser coming back as unrelated ≠ proved wrong

3) Checkuser coming back as unrelated ≠ baseless accusation

You can either accept that this happened and move on, or you can continue to press the issue and be bitter about it. Only one of those two options is going to get you anywhere. The other is just going to piss people off, as you can see by the beginning of this comment. Look, it sucks that this happened to you, but if all you do is continue to rub it in people's faces, all you're ever going to be known as is "that person accused of sockpuppetry", and that's not somewhere you want to be. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I honestly don't appreciate your insinuations. And I'm very sorry, but it was you, not me, who kept coming back to the sock puppetry case. Maybe if I repeat myself for the third time you will actually listen to what I've said?——

I would very much like to suggest that you familiarize yourself with the case first, before commenting on it...
My point was quite a different one. It's not just my "opinion" that you should take the time to inform yourself before making comments condemning others.

Now, you yourself admitted that you made your comment with "no knowledge of the specifics of this case", and that's exactly what bothers me. It would be FINE if you were just "defending" your "friend" from having to apologize to me (huuuuu), which to his credit he did, but no, you didn't stop there. You stated: just because a checkuser came back negative does not mean that two people are actually unrelated. Checkuser results can be fooled, and behavioral evidence can override a 'negative' checkuser when the behavioral evidence is strong enough. That's of course true, but what exactly were you trying to insinuate?

I assumed in good faith, because you weren't familiar with the case, that your suggestion — that I of all people could have fooled the Checkuser — was just misguided, ignorant of my conduct, and not malicious, since you apparently didn't even bother looking at the piles of personal evidence that I had voluntarily and publicly presented before you made that comment, or even at the statements in the Case page where I made it very clear that I was willing to do everything/anything to prove that I am who who I say I am — Daniel Tomé, Portuguese, etc. etc. —, and even suggested showing my Passport or whatever it took to prove beyond any doubt that those who shamelessly accused me of lying were wrong. (Now, you already know the results of the investigation.)

I do hate to come back to this sockpuppetry issue again, but let's be clear. As you can see above, I started the very beginning of this discussion by reminding you that I had been very willing to do anything it took to collaborate with the investigation just to show that the possibility that I am Kalki is exactly zero. Indeed, I went out of my way to do just that. And yet you just ignored it all and — once again — repeated that what's "more [important]" is that "Checkuser coming back as unrelated ≠ proved wrong". Well, of course! JESUS. Why do you insist pointing that out? What are you suggesting exactly? It's hard for me to keep assuming good faith when your comments appear so deliberately malicious. I requested that I be checked exactly to stop having to put up with people making such baseless, unfounded and dishonest insinuations about me. Please, don't do it again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your complete inability to let things drop speaks poorly of your ability to interact with others, and thus survive on this project. I was never talking to you on Cirt's page in the first place, I was talking to Cirt. I engaged you on this page because I thought your initial comment warranted a response. I responded to your second comment on this page because it was just plain wring. However you continued to press and press, and we've long since passed the point in which meaningful conversation could happen. At this point I'm not going to read anything else you post - I'm just going to remove it - and I would very much appreciate it if you stay off of my page. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lifting the Gibraltar DYK restrictions

[edit]

A couple of months ago, you opposed a proposal to lift the restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012. Could you possibly clarify (1) under what conditions you would support a lifting of the restrictions, and (2) when you think it would be appropriate to lift the restrictions? Prioryman (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re Featured Portals update

[edit]

Thanks for the update!

Please do keep me posted, and after we're all done with all that can be done to further improve the quality of Portal:Geography, then next on to Portal:Technology! — Cirt (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YMCA Youth Parliament articles

[edit]

I see that you weighed in on the YMCA Queensland Youth Parliament article, that was subsequently deleted. If you have a chance, do you mind weighing in on: Talk:YMCA Youth Parliament#YMCA Youth Parliament articles.

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional context is requested, preferably in the form of links or diffs. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great point, I've updated the talk page with links for the options that hopefully make it clearer.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Negative experience

[edit]

I just want you to know I had a very negative reaction to you. I had uploaded images from the FBI and posted links to them. You saw the links and instantly deleted them, writing "And those three images are gone, per my comment above. "

IT would have been a lot nicer of you to just move the images to en yourself. As you can see, the images are under active discussion the talk page, and when you deleted them, you disrupted our ability to have that conversation.

I realize it's a lot easier to hit delete than to take the time to improve-- but you should have taken that time. Don't just assume the people on the talk page know how to do make that move-- many don't. And certainly don't expect me to take the time to do it, the way you just nuked my last attempt at contributing to the project. --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that not everyone has as much experience in dealing with non-free content as I do, and I appreciate that my response may seem harsh, but even in extraordinary situations Wikipedia must make sure that it abides by copyright. Commons cannot host non-free content under any circumstances, and English Wikipedia cannot host non-free images unless they are being used in articles. We can't upload them and then decide to use them, we have to decide to use them and then upload them. I am sorry that my actions upset you, I didn't mean it as a personal slight, and I do forget sometimes that the knowledge about files and copyright that I take for granted are things that most other people don't know about. If a consensus develops at the talk page for the inclusion of the images, I will upload them myself if need be. Please accept my apologies in this matter. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Big hugs. Thanks-- and I'm sorry I got so out of sorts myself. Such a kind and an excellent reply sincerely. --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That RFA nomination...

[edit]

Yeah, I was just about to remove the posting prior to you doing so. Guess I got a little bit too excited about it! Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Sports

[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Sports

I've added some comments and recommendations at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Sports. Shouldn't be too hard to address, — Cirt (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your call for help

[edit]

Ok so I took a look, and you have an image wrapped by a div which is encased in a table, which is then wrapped with <center> tags. I don't think there's a need for *all* of those, and one of them is probably preventing you from right-aligning. Legoktm (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap, my shout out actually worked. I'm stunned. I have no idea how to fix any of that though. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WT:RFA#Closers will be needed

[edit]

Just a pointer. - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending release of Notifications

[edit]

Hey Sven Manguard :). I'm dropping you a note because you have signed up for the Notifications, or Echo, newsletter.

If all goes according to plan, we should be launching Echo on en-wiki either tomorrow, or next Tuesday - I'll drop a followup tomorrow when we know what's happening. Should the launch succeed, we'll begin the process of triaging bugs and gathering feedback on what features work, what cause problems, and what we should do next; I hope you'll help us out on these fronts by leaving any comments you might have on the talkpage.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Joanne (1972)

[edit]

See if the recent copyediting has helped out. I try to check out articles within the met and TC arenas when they go to GAN, to help prevent issues like this. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I can on the GA review page. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

Wiki Loves Monuments 2013

[edit]

Glad to hear you're interested in helping with Wiki Loves Monuments 2013. We're planning an online meeting within the next month to begin coordinating things. Please remember to subscribe to the Wiki Loves Monuments US mailing list at lists.wikimedia.org to continue receiving important announcements like these.

Mono 00:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May

[edit]

Comments post promotion

[edit]

Hey there, sorry but I removed these comments as they were made post promotion and a bot will soon be coming to archive that discussion. At this point in time, only place to post something like that would probably be at User talk:OhanaUnited. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries

[edit]

Feel free to keep the comment at the featured portal discussion page for Portal:Geography if you want, I just think, like, how many more comments should there be, post-closure? One? Two? Ten?

I think after the closure, further discussion could take place at Portal talk:Geography.

But anyways, thanks for all your help with the portal and you definitely deserve share of the credit for the Featured accomplishment! :) — Cirt (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Awake

[edit]

Just a heads-up that I've also nominated Awake's WikiProject for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup issue

[edit]

Hi; there's a discussion which relates to you here. If you have anything to say about the issue, you're welcome to contribute. J Milburn (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications box replacement prototypes released

[edit]

Hey Sven Manguard; Kaldari has finished scripting a set of potential replacements available to test and give feedback on. Please go to this thread for more detail on how to enable them. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter

[edit]

We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with Sven Manguard (submissions) claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place Casliber (submissions) and second place Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. 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) 16:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Issue with my bonus points continues

[edit]

Noted- sorry about this. I've asked Jarry to look into the matter; I'm afraid I've no power over the bot. J Milburn (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NyanData all the way accross the sky

[edit]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Amidoingitrightnow.gif

Close enough. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Sports

[edit]

I've heard that you're working on Portal:Sports, and I'm wondering if it's featured. It appears on Featured portals, but its talk page says it's still a candidate, and it's missing the star in the corner. -- Ypnypn (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was promoted by OhanaUnited along with Portal:Geography, but neither of the closes were finished properly. My understanding is that a bot was supposed to finish the close and never did. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June

[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books

[edit]

Hi Sven! Hey, since 5 June, several new books have been created, and nine of them have yet to have their pages marked as patrolled, as indicated by N! in the Recent Changes box. I was wondering if you could possibly look into this, please. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sven Manguard Wha? 19:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A very short rant...

[edit]

The article Amanda Clement was...

created on 29 March 2013‎,
featured as a DYK on April 4, 2013,
promoted to GA status on April 21, 2013,
and reviewed (i.e. new page patrolled) yesterday, 28 June 2013.

Does anyone else see a problem here? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bug somewhere since you shouldn't be able to patrol a page thats older than 30 days. Other than that, the real question is why aren't you an autopatroller yet? Legoktm (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Part of it is that the patrol links wouldn't always display - but in a recent Tech News they said they changed that, so now they're popping up all over the place. --Rs chen 7754 06:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an autopatroller because I only have started 10 articles (of which I've brought half to GA status, so theoretically, they're good articles). Autopatroller generally looks for 50. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elizabeth Brownrigg.JPG

[edit]

Hi. I wrote an article in Russian ru:Браунригг, Элизабет. You could download the image to the Wikimedia Commons, so that I could illustrate an article? Sorry, I can not speak English very well. Зейнал (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image appears to already be on Commons. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Plesae do it. Зейнал (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay I misunderstood. I thought you wanted the image already in your article to be moved to Commons. You meant you wanted File:Elizabeth Brownrigg.JPG moved to Commons. I have done this for you. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is necessary to delete the duplicate http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Elizabeth_Brownrigg.JPG. Please do it. Зейнал (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(From the top of this page) "I am not, contrary to (somewhat) popular misconception, an admin on English Wikipedia. I am an admin on Commons and Wikidata, but that does not allow me to do things on this project that require the mop." Sven Manguard Wha? 22:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Files

[edit]

You could download the image to the Wikimedia Commons, so that I could illustrate an article?

For ru:Парни из Скоттсборо

Зейнал (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do it. Зейнал (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monster under the rug

[edit]

Back when I was reviewing Liao Dynasty, I read your terrific essay "The monster under the rug". I don't think I mentioned this at the time, but it's inspired me to start helping out with some backlogs, specifically Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup and Category:NPOV disputes (in the latter, it's mostly just a question of detagging dormant disputes per that template's instruction page).

It has been really shocking to see how many of those templates linger for five years or more; you have to wonder in some cases if it would be better not to have them at all, to encourage more editors to try to engage with and fix articles on the spot. Anyway, I'm glad you wrote it, and I wish more Wikipedians would read it. Thanks for calling attention to this problem and for laying down this challenge. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm really glad to hear that. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]