This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fetchcomms (talk | contribs) at 02:38, 21 June 2011 (Added message to user talk page using Friendly). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:38, 21 June 2011 by Fetchcomms (talk | contribs) (Added message to user talk page using Friendly)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This user is currently being considered for adminship. To view the discussion and voice your opinion, please visit Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Guoguo12 2. |
|
Welcome! If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes. A tilde is a "~" and the key for it is below the ESC key. Thanks!
For past conversations, see Archive 1 and Archive 2.
 Archives | ||||
|
||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
| This is Guoguo12's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
WikiProject Wikfiy's April Drive
 | Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's April Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog to 18,000 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions! If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks! Note: The drive started April 1, but you can still join! |
My recent warning, apologies
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
User:SilenceFallsNightCalls
Hi, I guess I should have left a better explanation about my decline of that speedy. As a userpage, even if it has been blanked by the author, there's no need to delete it unless it contains content that really shouldn't be there. And, perhaps the user just wants it blank rather than deleted. Sorry for any inconvenience! —DoRD (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for clarifying, though I'm still not certain about whether or not the page should be tagged. As you can see from the history page, the author of the page (also the user who blanked the page) is not the "owner", so to speak, of the userpage. Still, according to WP:G7, it would seem that G7 applies to all pages "other than a userspace page or category page", though the description does not elaborate on tagging userpages. Guoguo12 (Talk) 20:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I must apologize for completely missing the fact that the page creator is someone else! I'm not sure how I overlooked that, but I'll delete the page right away. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. Of course, WP:G7 still seems kind of vague. Guoguo12 (Talk) 20:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- As for G7, the way I see it: This was a clear case where G7 applied. If a user blanks their own user page, I'd leave it alone. (NOTE TO SELF: Compare the author and the user page name next time.) You might also want to take a look at WP:UP#DELETE for more guidance. —DoRD (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. Of course, WP:G7 still seems kind of vague. Guoguo12 (Talk) 20:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I must apologize for completely missing the fact that the page creator is someone else! I'm not sure how I overlooked that, but I'll delete the page right away. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
(←) It's simply that the wording at WP:G7 is vague:
If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page or category page, this can be taken as a deletion request.
"Userspace page" is presumably only supposed to refer to user talk pages. Guoguo12 (Talk) 23:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2011 May newsletter
We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. 
Casliber (submissions), of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by 
Racepacket (submissions), 
Hurricanehink (submissions) and 
Canada Hky (submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.
A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Drive's goal
Sumsum notified, BTW. Nolelover
Hey Guoguo, quick question about the drive's goal. Should we think about AWB'ing a notice out, maybe halfway though, "challenging" (rather then just moving the goal up) our participants to get another 500 off the books? Nolelover 00:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Good idea. Things seem to be going too well now. Guoguo12 (Talk) 02:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- That sounds like a nice challenge. If the 500 were to be met, maybe give everyone who participated in the 500 a bonus barnstar. Sumsum2010·T·C 02:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Heh, I've looked over a few of the articles done, especially by the newer members, and they generally look pretty good. At this rate (500 done every four days), we'd have this backlog goooooone. Anyway, my $.02: don't make the extension seem like we're just using them while we have their attention (that's why I specified "challenging" them), and don't burn them out with, like 2k more - participation will slow down as we go on. Nolelover 02:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sumsum2010, I don't think there's any way of distinguishing between participating users and non-participating ones. Uh-oh, I'm not on the leaderboard anymore. Guoguo12 (Talk) 02:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- For the bonus, we could just note the amount they have at the beginning of the challenge,and the amount at the end. Sumsum2010·T·C 03:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Will that work? I think it's a bit too complicated. What say you, Nolelover? Guoguo12 (Talk) 03:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well...TBH...I'm not much of a fan of using barnstars any more then necessary. Too many sort of ruin the whole concept. Are they a good reward for the drives? Yes. Should we just hand them out for every extra little task? IMO, no. However, that's really more about my attitude toward barnstar's, and less about the actual idea. It seems rather hard to do, but ya'll are the co'ords. (I so did not just ditch this right back to you guys ;)) Nolelover 03:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe just an extra sentence on the barnstar they'll already be getting. Sumsum2010·T·C 04:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Is that a good incentive? Guoguo12 (Talk) 15:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I don't really think that we need more "incentives". If they can rip through 1000 in around 10 days, then I don't think that 500 more over 20 days is extremely tough. That's why I specify "challenging" them - its purely voluntary, especially after the original goal has been met. Nolelover 16:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- This month's group does not seem to need much incentive, they've gone through in 4 days what the October drive took a month to do. The extra 500 would probably vanish in a few days, even without incentive.Sumsum2010·T·C 18:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, likely. Now all we need to do is bury this conversation.
Guoguo12 (Talk) 20:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, likely. Now all we need to do is bury this conversation.
- This month's group does not seem to need much incentive, they've gone through in 4 days what the October drive took a month to do. The extra 500 would probably vanish in a few days, even without incentive.Sumsum2010·T·C 18:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I don't really think that we need more "incentives". If they can rip through 1000 in around 10 days, then I don't think that 500 more over 20 days is extremely tough. That's why I specify "challenging" them - its purely voluntary, especially after the original goal has been met. Nolelover 16:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Is that a good incentive? Guoguo12 (Talk) 15:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe just an extra sentence on the barnstar they'll already be getting. Sumsum2010·T·C 04:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well...TBH...I'm not much of a fan of using barnstars any more then necessary. Too many sort of ruin the whole concept. Are they a good reward for the drives? Yes. Should we just hand them out for every extra little task? IMO, no. However, that's really more about my attitude toward barnstar's, and less about the actual idea. It seems rather hard to do, but ya'll are the co'ords. (I so did not just ditch this right back to you guys ;)) Nolelover 03:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Will that work? I think it's a bit too complicated. What say you, Nolelover? Guoguo12 (Talk) 03:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- For the bonus, we could just note the amount they have at the beginning of the challenge,and the amount at the end. Sumsum2010·T·C 03:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sumsum2010, I don't think there's any way of distinguishing between participating users and non-participating ones. Uh-oh, I'm not on the leaderboard anymore. Guoguo12 (Talk) 02:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Heh, I've looked over a few of the articles done, especially by the newer members, and they generally look pretty good. At this rate (500 done every four days), we'd have this backlog goooooone. Anyway, my $.02: don't make the extension seem like we're just using them while we have their attention (that's why I specified "challenging" them), and don't burn them out with, like 2k more - participation will slow down as we go on. Nolelover 02:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
|
WP:Edit summaries
I agree with this edit, but we should use only policy based language, such as "not yet notable" or "no article yet" in edit summaries. --Lexein (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- I must disagree. "Significance", or "why the subject is important", is used in policy; it is different than notability because it represents a standard lower than notability. See WP:A7. Guoguo12 (Talk) 18:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Two quick questions
Hi there,
I am currently taking part in your wikify June drive, also my first. I have been looking at the edits by some of the other editors, particularly those scaling the top of the leader board as it is, to see if i can find ways to speed up my own wikifying technique. My questions are in relation to some edit's i have spotted. Take this article for example Morrissey Hearing by current board leader User:Kerowyn. The article is relatively small but could have been improved further rather than adding a bullet point next to the reference and counting it as wikified. For a start there could have been more wikilinks added such as "testify" and "custody", as an example. Please do not misunderstand as i am not trying to point a finger, but simply find out for myself if simple motions such as this count as wikifying an article. If this is so, it may help my own ranking on the leaderboard. Another question i would like to ask is on articles containing only 1 or 2 sentences is it allowed to just link 2 or 3 words and count it as wikified if it is not eligible for an infobox etc? This also seems to be quite a popular way of wikifying.
Thanks for your help.
Bailo26 23:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for pointing out the edits by Kerowyn (talk · contribs). I'll remind the editor to be more careful in wikifying, look over (or someone will) the users edits, and possibly disqualify any not fully wikified articles until they are fully wikified. As for the second question, on "articles containing only 1 or 2 sentences", yes adding just two or three links is okay as long as it is thorough—if it can be linked, it should be, bearing in mind the exceptions at WP:OVERLINK. Guoguo12 (Talk) 02:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- After scanning through the user's log, I found that most of the articles completed were appropriately wikified. Morrissey Hearing is okay—words like "testify" and "custody" are nearly plain English words, which should not be wikified per WP:OVERLINK. If the user had linked "testify" and "custody", that would have been okay as well. Guoguo12 (Talk) 15:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- The only issue I found with the user's work, and Guoguo, you might want to mention this, is the failure to link the definition of the article. In other words, what was the Morrissey Hearing? It was a "legal proceeding". That should have been linked, if nothing else. As a general rule, x should always be linked in the format "(Article title) is an x", or "(Article title), born DOB, was an x". Those should always be linked, and I noticed that Kerowyn didn't always do that. Nolelover 15:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, okay Nolelover, good point. I've notified the user about the stuff before but do go ahead and add the definition stuff, too. Guoguo12 (Talk) 15:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Done, and thanks for bringing this to our attention Bailo. Nolelover 15:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I just read your message and clearly you're better at this than I am. It took me a long time to come up with words that didn't sound too harsh. But I forgot to use a smiley . Guoguo12 (Talk) 15:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Heh, I've got some RL experience in that sort of thing, and yes, smileys make even the worst criticism bearable. ;) Nolelover 15:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I just read your message and clearly you're better at this than I am. It took me a long time to come up with words that didn't sound too harsh. But I forgot to use a smiley
- Ah, okay Nolelover, good point. I've notified the user about the stuff before but do go ahead and add the definition stuff, too. Guoguo12 (Talk) 15:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- The only issue I found with the user's work, and Guoguo, you might want to mention this, is the failure to link the definition of the article. In other words, what was the Morrissey Hearing? It was a "legal proceeding". That should have been linked, if nothing else. As a general rule, x should always be linked in the format "(Article title) is an x", or "(Article title), born DOB, was an x". Those should always be linked, and I noticed that Kerowyn didn't always do that. Nolelover 15:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi all! Thanks for the help. It's good to know what I've been doing wrong. It happens not infrequently that all that is left to do is remove the wikify tag, especially if the article is a stub to begin with. The solar eclipse articles were almost all like that. Kerowyn 17:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- After scanning through the user's log, I found that most of the articles completed were appropriately wikified. Morrissey Hearing is okay—words like "testify" and "custody" are nearly plain English words, which should not be wikified per WP:OVERLINK. If the user had linked "testify" and "custody", that would have been okay as well. Guoguo12 (Talk) 15:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Altered speedy deletion rationale: Automatic build and deployment documentum dar composer
Hello Guoguo12. I am just letting you know that I deleted Automatic build and deployment documentum dar composer, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. —DoRD (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Back for more? I originally tagged the page for deletion under A1, which you deleted the page under. However, you'll find that A1 "applies only to very short articles". I'd say no content (A3) is more like it. The page very clearly had not content on it—only coding of some sort which I did not attempt to identify. I also threw in G1, "patent nonsense", for good measure. It looked like "incoherent text or gibberish" to me—both, for that matter. But anyway, there's always WP:SNOW and WP:NOT, right? Guoguo12 (Talk) 03:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, it wasn't "very short", so perhaps my rationale didn't exactly fit, either. It was XML code for something I wasn't able to identify, so it wasn't nonsense, per se. In any case, if the author disagrees, they are welcome to appeal it. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
WP:Milestones
Your analysis was spot on. I apologise for any inconvenience, it should be fixed now. I really should have given the script a once-over after your last message... sigh. Ah well. Thanks also to Bdk for fixing. - Jarry1250 12:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jarry1250. In any case, if it wasn't for your bot, the page would be completely devoid of interesting or useful information. Guoguo12 (Talk) 14:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
#2
Just saw it on my watchlist. Good luck! Nolelover 15:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- What? Really? You're actually watching that page? I didn't even transclude it correctly! But anyway, thanks!
Guoguo12 (Talk) 15:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- (I watch User:X!/Tally) Good luck. --The Σ contribs 21:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Thank you. Guoguo12 (Talk) 00:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, don't hold your breaths, guys. I'll be too busy to start the RfA until tomorrow. Guoguo12 (Talk) 22:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- *Releases breath, passes out* Hurry up! :D But in all seriousness, do make sure that you have plenty of time to devote to this - RfA is not a good week to be on WP for a minimal amount of time. And yes, I was actually watching the page. Added it a few weeks ago - wanted to know as soon as anything happened. :) Nolelover 23:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Done, see WP:RFA. Guoguo12 (Talk) 22:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- *Releases breath, passes out* Hurry up! :D But in all seriousness, do make sure that you have plenty of time to devote to this - RfA is not a good week to be on WP for a minimal amount of time. And yes, I was actually watching the page. Added it a few weeks ago - wanted to know as soon as anything happened. :) Nolelover 23:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, don't hold your breaths, guys. I'll be too busy to start the RfA until tomorrow. Guoguo12 (Talk) 22:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see.
- (I watch User:X!/Tally) Good luck. --The Σ contribs 21:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Your RFA
Good luck with your RFA. I know you'd do well with the mop. –BuickCenturyDriver 23:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! Guoguo12 (Talk) 23:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)