User talk:Rcsprinter123 - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rcsprinter123 (talk | contribs) at 15:17, 28 September 2011 (re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:17, 28 September 2011 by Rcsprinter123 (talk | contribs) (re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Rcsprinter123

User page Talk Content
creations DYK Commons Awards Subpages

is busy holiday and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This is Rcsprinter123's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 8 days

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Re: YGM

Hey. I discussed it with my fellow Signpostians last night, and we'd be happy to publish a piece along the lines suggested. However, we do feel that it could benefit from a stronger narrative e.g. about whether the results were as expected, any changes from previous periods, etc. We're happy to help with that, of course. Two weeks should give us long enough to sort out the first report :) - Jarry1250 08:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose I could work some of that in to it. If it does get published, which section would it be in? The News and Notes, Technology, even Opinion, or will it get a special report section to itself? Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Depending on length, it would either get a special report, or it would be a section in F&A, I should think. - Jarry1250 09:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

What's F&A? I can't find anything which might be that. I'm improving the article now. Rcsprinter (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at my new version and decided yet? Rcsprinter (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, we didn't get a chance to look at this for last week's issue, but we'll try to get it into next week's in some form :) F&A is the Features ("Best of the Week") weekly report. - Jarry1250 20:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Which exact time period does it cover? I'm guessing it includes July given the appearance of Amy Winehouse on the list. - Jarry1250 19:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Just around the general time of this year so far. I'm planning to do another one around about January or something. Rcsprinter (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

From the editor: Changes to The Signpost

News and notes: Ushahidi research tool announced, Citizendium five years on: success or failure?, and Wikimedia DC officially recognised

In the news: Misplaced Pages: yesterday's news? Calls for women, doctors, and scholars of humanities; Wales makes Wikimedia work "look easy"

Sister projects: On the Wikinews fork

WikiProject report: Back to school

Featured content: The best of the week

Arbitration report: ArbCom narrowly rejects application to open new case

Technology report: MediaWiki 1.18 deployment begins, the alleged "injustice" of WMF engineering policy, and Wikimedians warned of imminent fix to magic word

Popular pages: Article stats for the English Misplaced Pages in the last year

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:22, 20 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 and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .

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


Stubs		Cleanup
	Mansfield bus station		Toby Belch
	J.O.B. Records		Lewis Hamilton (footballer)
	Gilia latiflora		Malvolio
	Aliciella	Merge
	St George's Street railway station		Ottoman Empire
	Gilia tenuiflora		Seed cake
	Bob Karp		Law of placing
	Gilia achilleifolia	Add sources
	Metti una sera a cena		Ipswich
	Stagecoach East Midlands		List of bus routes in West Sussex
	Gudhjem		Lynne Me Your Ears
	Gilia stellata	Wikify
	Henderson Bay		Alan Ginsburg
	Rani Chandra		Memory improvement
	Ben McKay (actor)		National Heart Foundation of Australia
	Bre Pettis	Expand
	Gilia tricolor		National University of San Marcos
	Gilia leptantha		1934–35 in English football
	Stagecoach in Hampshire		Menace from the Deep

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 Misplaced Pages 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) 19:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ian Cook (artist)

Maybe, but how do we know? I reverted the change and left a uw-unsourced1 tag on the talk page of the editor who made the change. What source do you have for 1979? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I happen to be on Twitter at the moment talking to Ian Cook and told him about the page; what a coincidence would it be if somebody with the username of his company came and edited a year right then? Rcsprinter (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) His page on myartspace (already cited in the article) gives 28 April 1983 as his DOB, so we should probably go with that. But that would seem to cast some doubt on the unsourced statement that he studied at Langley Secondary School from 1990-1999, which wouldn't fit with his new age. RCS, where did that info come from? Alzarian16 (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

@Rsc; the problem is verifiability. That's why I was looking for a source (thanks Alzarian). --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a source, its . LinkedIn. And would anyone like to check its DYK submission? Rcsprinter (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

AfD closes

Hi Rcsprinter123. When you close AfDs as keep, please remove the AfD tag from the article. You neglected to do this at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dade Behring, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Race course, Ooty, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Florida Oceanographic Society, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zeina Awad.

Also, please carefully consider the arguments made by participants before you decide to close an AfD as keep. Some keep votes are not firmly grounded in policy, like those at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zeina Awad, where participants did not point to specific policies/guidelines or did so vaguely without specific discussion of the subject. When votes are not based on policy, it would be a better choice to relist. Goodvac (talk) 06:35, 24 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 16:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ginsberg's theorem

Hi Rcsprinter123. Please revert your closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ginsberg's theorem. The proponents of retention did not explain how the sources in the article constituted significant coverage as required by the GNG. Per Misplaced Pages:Non-admin closure#Inappropriate closures, "Outcomes of the discussion that require an evaluation of all of the arguments relative to the policies" should not be closed by non-admins. Please self-revert and relist the discussion so other editors can weigh in about the sources. Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why it happened...

..., but this is rather strange. I've fixed it, so you don't need to worry, but you might want to figure out why that happened so you won't accidentally do it again. Cheers. lifebaka++ 08:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Relisting debates

Debates like Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kesgrave Hall School shouldn't be relisted by a non-administrator in a controversal AFD such as that one. There is such thing as a no-consensus AFD. The only AFDs that usually get relisted are ones with one or two comments, or ones with absolutely no policy based comments, which this AFD doesn't qualify. I was a former adminstrator with four years of closing AFD debates, I should know. Thanks Secret 18:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to avoid any potential confusion... don't close them as No Concensus either. Leave closing of controversial or contentious AfDs to administrators. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Opps forgot to mention don't close them as no consensus neither though u were kinda warned above. Secret 19:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Colin Craig

I'm not sure I agree with your non-admin closure of the Colin Craig AfD; he still fails WP:Politician, I don't believe the page meets the GNG and there wasn't a clear consensus for keep. Mattlore (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mattlore's assessment here. Please revert your inappropriate closure. You wrote, "Being kept because extra references found." It is not your prerogative to cast a supervote through your closure. If you feel the additional sources establish notability, feel free to opine in the discussion stating that, but don't close the discussion based on your personal opinion of the article. Goodvac (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011

Opinion essay: The global mission, the image filter and the "German question"

Recent research: Top female Wikipedians, reverted newbies, link spam, social influence on admin votes, Wikipedians' weekends, WikiSym previews

News and notes: WMF strikes down enwiki consensus, academic journal partnerships, and eyebrows raised over minors editing porn-related content

In the news: Sockpuppeting journalist recants, search dominance threatened, new novels replete with Misplaced Pages references

WikiProject report: A project in overdrive: WikiProject Automobiles

Featured content: The best of the week

Arbitration report: "Broadly construed" explained, voting begins on Senkaku Islands case, invitation to comment on CU/OS candidates

Technology report: 1.18 deployment on track, "mythical" Git migration scheduled, editor decline statistics improved

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Buffalo City FC

May I ask why you relisted this? It's not exactly short of arguments. And in fact, is there a particular reason you're relisting things as a non-admin anyway? I don't see anything in WP:NAC regarding relisting. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I relisted it because there had been two delete and two keep votes since the last relist. Arguments were all the same too. And who said non-admins can't relist? Aren't we allowed to do anything except vote? Rcsprinter (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, it's not a vote. Secondly, non-admins are trusted with a limited set of defined responsibilies per WP:NAC because these are low-impact and don't require the community to have invested the trust of the mop to editors to deal with. Relisting is not one of them, as it's far too much of a judgement call: additionally, relisting is usually for cases where there has been insufficient input, and that wasn't the case here. IMO you should have left that to an admin to close. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Colin Craig

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Colin Craig. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattlore (talk • contribs)

I have commented in the review. Rcsprinter (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)