User talk:Richwales/Archives/2011-09

Cocaine Blues

(including material copied from User talk:Mnealon and User talk:RepublicanJacobite)

Hi. I was confused by this edit at Cocaine Blues (western swing song), which looks like a significant removal of content. Since you appear to have been doing constructive work on this page, I resisted my initial rash impulse to revert this change and decided to ask first. What's going on? Did this deleted material go somewhere else? Was it in fact not worth putting anywhere else? Sorry if I'm simply missing something here. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for not acting rashly. The original article conflated several songs with the same name so I moved the original to Cocaine Blues (western swing song) and in its place I moved the section on other songs with the same name to the new disambiguation page I created at Cocaine Blues.Mnealon (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What you did was act without consulting your fellow editors or engaging in any discussion. The fact is, all of these different versions are related and should be discussed in one place. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 01:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you may have intended to write this at User talk:Mnealon — he was the person who split up the Cocaine Blues article. I simply asked Mnealon what was going on, after I noticed the major change (as reported by STiki) and was confused. If you meant instead that you felt I had done something wrong here (even though, in fact, I never touched Cocaine Blues), I'd be grateful if you could clarify. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I was responding to his message on your page, because he had not responded to my message on the article talk page. I was not accusing you of anything, I assure you. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 01:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

RfA Reform update

Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.

I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:

• Have a look at the min requirement proposal and familiarise yourself with the statistics, I'd appreciate comment on where we should put the bar.
• Any final comments would be appreciated on the clerks proposal.
• Feedback on the two newer proposals - Pre-RfA & Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Sysop on request. Both are more radical reforms of RfA and might run along side the current system.

Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

Interwiki bot problem (en:Decapitation)

[copied here from the user talk page of JAn Dudík on the Czech Wikipedia]

Hi. Your bot created an interwiki link between the English article en:Decapitation and the Vietnamese article vi:Decapitated. The link was removed by the bot a few minutes after it was created, but I felt I should still let you know about the issue.

The English article is about death by beheading. The Vietnamese article, as far as I can tell, is about a "heavy metal" rock band. These two articles are not related and should (obviously, I believe) not be interwiki-linked, but I've seen this incorrect link show up in the English page at least twice in the past before your bot did it a few hours ago.

Is there anything you need to do so that your bot won't make this mistake again? More generally, is there anything you or anyone else can do to stop this particular interwiki link from showing up by whatever means in the en:Decapitation article?

Thanks for any help. Richwales (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, bot added wrong link, but I noticed it and removed it few minutes later. The bot which initiated this mess was USer:Cheers!-bot. JAn 18:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? As best I can tell, en:User:Cheers!-bot has been blocked on the English Wikipedia since February 2011. And the earlier instances of this incorrect link (in August 2011) were done by en:User:KamikazeBot and en:User:AvicBot. Is there anything to be gained if I talk to the people who run those two bots? Or do I really need to talk to someone at the Vietnamese Wikipedia? Richwales (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Both groups have now correct interwiki, so no bot will mix it again in autonomous mode. in this edit Cheersbot added incorrect links to vi: article. JAn 18:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I won't worry about this problem any more, then. Richwales (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Sudbury Arts Council Anti-Coolie Act Borderless (album) Gold Mountain Cable Act Chinatown, Lima Musulman Cengiz Biçer Global Commerce Bank Ferhat Öztorun Chinese American Museum Liberum Help Desk U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Sudbury Junction railway station Chinese Historical Society of Southern California Roman Dąbrowski Ginger beef Chinese American Citizens Alliance United Airlines Flight 823

Cleanup Syria Atlantic slave trade St. Paul sandwich Merge Napa cabbage Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden Cuban Eight Add Sources Abgar V of Edessa Chinese massacre of 1871 Caribbean Chinese cuisine Wikify Farma (Slovakia) Kmetija 1 Jerome Silbergeld Expand Extended Secondary School List of Hangin' with Mr. Cooper episodes List of Chinese American associations

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a note...

• How are you placed this weekend? In terms of time? Wifione ^Message 04:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll probably have time during the later afternoon and the evening on Saturday, and possibly also during the same time span on Sunday. (US Pacific time). Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That's great. So would you be comfortable to go live on Saturday evening or on Sunday evening? That's because once we transclude, at least for the initial questions, you should have the time to answer patiently... Wifione ^Message 04:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a second person who says he'll co-nom if you co-nom first. :-) If you're ready to put your co-nom statement on the page, let me know and I'll tell the other person (so he can see it and know he'll be the second). As for when I go live, I'd prefer mid-afternoon (my time) on Saturday; or, if we miss that, then mid-afternoon on Sunday. Can I assume this means you've gone over my statement, my initial answers, and the stuff I e-mailed you, and you feel it's all OK? Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, perfectly alright. Great then. Expect an email from me tomorrow morn. Best. Wifione ^Message 06:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs			Cleanup
	Montebello Genocide Memorial			West Springfield Highlanders
	Kayako			Sam Walton
	Ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland			Overseas Chinese banks
	Fatalna ljubav		Merge
	Chinese Exclusion			ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus
	Dino Dan			Plant-growth promoting rhizobacteria
	Gore od ljubavi			Anatolia
	East Dawning		Add sources
	Williams FW12			Edessa, Mesopotamia
	Online Gamers Anonymous			Midyat
	Miyazu Line			Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association
	La Finca		Wikify
	Decenija			Doctorandus
	Physical disability			Benchamaratrungsarit 2 school
	Kavanagh QC			Pacifique Recording Studios
	Chinese aristocrat cuisine		Expand
	Tama-nui-te-rā			Baylor Bears tennis
	'Til Death Do Us Part (U.S. TV series)			Parashah
	Kishin Line			Differences between Scottish Gaelic and Irish

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Beat the 'crat congrats

Well done Rich, congratulations on a well deserved result. Proves that your dozens of vote-stacked co-nominators were right, and the opposers were wrong. I still just wish the candidates could get through all this without the silly drama. So welcome to the club of most hated Wikipedians :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Richwales (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

✭ Official Uniform T-Shirt of the Cabal ✭

	✭ T-Shirt of the Cabal ✭
	Good job, I'm surprised nobody beat me to this yet. →Στc. 22:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will display this proudly on my user page. Richwales (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Protection

Looks good - you applied the right template, left a notice, etc.   Will Beback  talk  06:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011

RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.

(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.) The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere. A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits. The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments. The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals: Improving the environment that surrounds RfA in order to encourage mature, experienced editors of the right calibre to come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their time to admin tasks. Discouraging, in the nicest way possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to guide them towards the advice pages. The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space. We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus. New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern. Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 16:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Congratulations

Did someone order a mop ?

Congratulations on successfully navigating the gauntlet that is RFA. You should see some new buttons now. Happy adminning, –xeno^talk 20:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

We finally got it right this time! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well done Rich! --Mkativerata (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You finally got the mop and bucket. Now get to work cleaning up this mess! ;)   Will Beback  talk  21:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Your order is in, Congrats. Mlpearc Public (Talk) 21:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Congrats, Rich! You've done a fantastic job addressing the concerns of your first RfA, and you're more than deserving of the overwhelming support you got. :) Best regards, Swarm 00:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You deserved it! And I'm very pleased the community has agreed. Best wishes always. Remember the ground rule for any admin action - "When in doubt, don't do it!" :) Wifione ^Message 07:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too. I hope you don't feel too bruised after that process. --Deadly∀ssassin 07:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for your supportive thoughts and comments. Richwales (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well done and enjoy the mop! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 09:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Star Dust (aircraft)

(including material copied from User talk:N419BH)

I have begun the GA review of this article. N419BH 20:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I agree that an image or two of the crash site or the debris field would be helpful. The only such images I've ever seen so far are non-free material (from books and TV); and since there is already one fair-use image (the photo of the aircraft), I had hesitated to add more. If you think it's really important, though — and especially if you think a photo of the wreckage is essential to GA quality — let me know and I'll see what I can come up with. Richwales (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The GA criteria call for "images where possible and appropriate" (emphasis mine). I did see the copyrighted images on the PBS site while verifying sources. Short of grabbing a DSLR and a backpack and climbing the darn mountain though I think it'd be pretty hard to find images. Perhaps some exist from the new accident report? I know NTSB images are public domain but I'm not sure regarding images from Chilean/Argentinean government agencies. Might be something to look into. I also would like to see the new report cited if it's available. So far the new investigation is only cited once. N419BH 21:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me do a bit of cleanup on the second paragraph of the "STENDEC" section. Richwales (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I reworked the paragraph in question, with more cites (and one additional source). I can work on it more if you would like. Let me know. Richwales (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I added another source for the 2000 Argentine air force investigation. This source (The Guardian) is really just an echo of the earlier source (The Birmingham Post, as reported by thefreelibrary.com), but some people might find this new source to be of better quality because the info is from The Guardian's own web site rather than being reported via a third-party site. I've done some searching for the actual Argentine air force report, but so far without success. I'll keep looking. Richwales (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Per your suggestions, I'll keep looking for additional material that might improve this article. Richwales (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I added a photo of the intact wheel found amidst the Star Dust wreckage. This is a screen shot from a TV show, used under a fair use justification — probably the best that can be done, though it's possible (albeit IMO unlikely) that a free photo could be found at some future date. I'll continue to look for a copy of the 2000 Argentine air force report. Richwales (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)