User talk:Giggy/Archive/February 2009

"Recentism" on 4_chan

What is your reason to remove the Boxxy section on 4chan? I see you cite the essay WP:Recentism, but it's unclear from citing that essay what exactly you see as wrong with the section as a whole. Do you think the three sentences on Boxxy are overburdening the article with documenting recent events? -kotra (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm tweaking the header simply to get the vandalism alarms to stop going off - sorry for butting in. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Boxxy is irrelevant and non notable and will be forgotten about in a month. Hence her article should be deleted and she shouldn't be mentioned. Giggy (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I think you're jumping the gun a bit. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxxy is still ongoing, and it may turn out that your opinion isn't shared by most of the community (though at this point, it looks like it might be). I don't mind leaving the stuff on Boxxy off 4chan while the AfD is going (though usually such mentions are removed after the associated AfD results in delete), but if the AfD results in keep, I'll re-add it. -kotra (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Deal. Giggy (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

... above comment made before I saw the afd closed as delete. Please don't take it the wrong way, it was not supposed to offend in any way. Giggy (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks! -kotra (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 07:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (January 2009)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

OK Computer

I don't know if I can look at it today (about to go out), but if I don't get to it tonight I'll give it a read tomorrow. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

Okay, I've had a brief look, and here's what I came up with:

• I'm not a fan of citations in an article lead. Ideally everything in the lead should be in the body somewhere, so I see these as sort of unnecessary, although I concede that some other editors like and insist upon them.
• Is the quote supported by cite #38 accurate? Because it doesn't seem to make sense.

• What, the bit about it being inspired by Pink Floyd? Google Books search says that band is mentioned on page 161 (which is cited) but that page isn't available in the preview, so I can't check it. Giggy (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• No, the bit where it says "which is what is what all string parts have sounded like for the past 30 years". Doesn't make sense, in a lexical way (although I get what he's saying). If it's a direct quote, then fine, but it just looks odd. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC).

• Oh, that. Fixed. Giggy (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• In the "Musical style and themes" section, I am not particularly enamoured of the way that each track is listed (in rote order) with a comment or two. Not once, but twice.
• I'd suggest wikilinking waltz time, but since that's a redirect to a page that doesn't discuss it, perhaps it would be better to replace this technical term with 3/4 time, which redirects to the same article, but is at least defined there.

Just suggestions, of course. Are you planning on trying to take it to FA? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

WT:RFA

I lol'ed at your strucken point number three..... classy! Pedro :  Chat  15:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: 4chan

I know you are only trying to keep the article to the point, but the section you just removed (further reading) did list the manhunt as one of the top three negatives about "Australians using the Internet in 2007". That suicide pact was another, and I'm sure you can remember the public reaction.

This (context) seems worth including somewhere as the Rudd Government has recently blacklisted the site, or at least the adult boards. Would you add the link to your userpage or whatever so the section is reinstated once the attacks section is split off into a separate list? Cheers, Ottre 15:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 6	8 February 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more	Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:My Happiness Slinky Video.png

Thank you for uploading Image:My Happiness Slinky Video.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

A picture question

Hey Giggy, can you take a look at the warning I just received and let me know what I need to do?---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 07:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This. Giggy (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Checking in

How's life? You may answer in lolspeak form if you so choose. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI

An article you contributed too:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_units_in_the_Age_of_Mythology_series_(2nd_nomination) Ikip (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thank you for weighing in at my RFA. I think Sindy is the main place we've interacted, aside from perhaps the Australian noticeboard. Haven't seen you around much lately, but at least you are still around, and not retired like so many other good editors. :) Somno (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

From the editor — A new leaf

Commons Picture of the Year
Picture of the Year 2008 begins voting

News and notes
Flagged Revisions, historical image discovery, and more

In the news
Political tiff, error repeated in press, predictions of doom

Dispatches
How busy was 2008?

WikiProject report
WikiProject Gaelic games

Discussion report
Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins
Approved this week

Technology report
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Arbitration report
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist.
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

O hai

I'm doing alright. Got another FA recently. Do you need help with anything? WesleyDodds (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Keeping an eye on me?

I know you're watching me? ;-) Thanks.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 15:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Userbox for GA reviews

The userbox {{User Good Articles reviewed}} has been updated so that it can now link to a page in your user subspace where you keep track of all your GA reviews, if you have such a page. This can be done by adding a | and then the name of your user subpage (or subsection of your regular user page) wherever you have the template called. For example, on my user page I am using

{{User Good Articles reviewed|6|User:Rjanag/GA reviews}}

which displays as

This user has reviewed 6 Good Article nominations on Wikipedia.

There is more information on how to do this at Template:User Good Articles reviewed.

Note: If you are not interested in doing this, you don't have to do anything; the template will still work for you exactly as it does now.

Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Simple

hope you don't mind - I just really like that. I keep remembering it. Kennedy ^(talk) 21:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request

Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)