User talk:Juliancolton/Archive 31
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Juliancolton. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
The Signpost: 14 February 2011
- News and notes: Foundation report; gender statistics; DMCA takedowns; brief news
- In the news: Wikipedia wrongly blamed for Super Bowl gaffe; "digital natives" naive about Wikipedia; brief news
- WikiProject report: Articles for Creation
- Features and admins: RFAs and active admins—concerns expressed over the continuing drought
- Arbitration report: Proposed decisions in Shakespeare and Longevity; two new cases; motions passed, and more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Welcome back!
I've missed seeing you around. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! Glad to be back... looks like the place hasn't burned down in my absence. :) Juliancolton (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm glad as well... there were a couple small fires, but it's not like we needed a study or sitting room anyhow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Also very glad to see you back on my watchlist! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Finally. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks both! And yeah, I'm just glad the sauna is still around. Juliancolton (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Finally. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Also very glad to see you back on my watchlist! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm glad as well... there were a couple small fires, but it's not like we needed a study or sitting room anyhow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Back to work!
You say you're back, so now I'm gonna try to put you back to work. After doing a job over at Albany, New York, I decided to step up and do New York. Then I came in contact with a campaign employee of Kirsten Gillibrand, and now I'm working on a rewrite of her article too (see here). Your help would be appreciated. Have a look-see and let me know what you think. You can tell which sections of each article I've done. Time to get back to work! Welcome back! upstateNYer 04:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well that was fast. The Albany article looks awesome. I think I remember you starting to work on it, but I haven't seen the final product until now. When's it going to FAC? Re: Gillibrand, I'd be happy to help. I'm useless when it comes to strictly political stuff, but I can help finish off sections like her personal life. Great to see you around again! Juliancolton (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Albany went to FAC a while back. I didn't really enjoy the outcome of that discussion. :/ However the article did lead to this, though they didn't include a link, so the hits to the article weren't much more than a regular Saturday (I swear I wasn't whoring myself out, I just wanted the locals to realize what a source they had at their fingertips now). Whatever you think you can add to the Gillibrand or NY drafts would be great. They're both big projects and surprisingly I haven't been able to find anyone to help (with all the arguing that goes on at Talk:New York, you'd think some people would want a vested interest...). Anyway, glad you're back! upstateNYer 17:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Neat Times Union article, but c'mon, where's my shout-out for being the one who nominated you to be an admin?! Though I always like to see the media associate Wikipedia with real, respectable people, so it looks like we have some credibility. That Albany FAC looks like quite the mess, so I wouldn't blame you if you decide GA is a good "finishing" point for the article, but let me know if you plan to take another shot at it sometime. Just curious, which of your two current projects would you say is the top priority? Juliancolton (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Gillibrand, mainly because I'm working with one of her employees to do it (and, less my concern, but she is currently running for reelection in 2012; take note I'm not writing this out of support for her campaign or anything. I had always wanted to rewrite Shumer and Gillibrand's articles since they're NY's senators, so when I came across a user that is employed by her, it was a slam dunk. I'm pretty much done with the 'gun control' section, which I think you'll agree is quite neutral and balanced - if not, let me know). That said, if you feel more comfortable writing about the state, so be it. upstateNYer 18:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi all, I just wanted to welcome Julian back (we never met, but I've been working on P:HVNY, and your initial work on it was just great) and apologize for not pitching in on the Gillibrand or new New York articles – but on the plus side, I remedied one of Julian's old comments, so no harm, no foul.
--Gyrobo (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)- No big deal, Gyrobo. Beggars can't be choosers (and in this case I'm a beggar). When/If you're interested in helping, please do. upstateNYer 01:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- A nice big "welcome back" from me, too. The wiki hasn't been the same since you (sort of) left. Dylan620 (t • c) 01:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Dylan. :) Juliancolton (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- A nice big "welcome back" from me, too. The wiki hasn't been the same since you (sort of) left. Dylan620 (t • c) 01:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hey Gyrobo, nice to meet you and thanks for the welcome back. Obviously I haven't kept up with the HV project in the past year or so, and as a result I've only just noticed your extensive article work. Let me just say I'm incredibly impressed and overjoyed by your work on local articles like the HV and Walden-Walkill rail trails and the Rosendale Village page. It's rare to see such high-quality content being created, especially for things I see and utilize on a daily basis! We definitely need to collaborate on an article sometime. Thanks so much for taking charge with the WikiProject! Juliancolton (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ditto the above, great to see you editing again :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- The rail trails are actually why I started editing. I really like researching un- and under-documented features of Ulster County, but in the long term I'd like to do for Kingston, New York what UpstateNYer did for Albany.
--Gyrobo (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)- Seeing a rewrite of the Kingston article would be nice... let me know if you need any help with it. Between the two of us (and I'm sure other members of WPHV) there should be no shortage of available pictures. I've always wanted to get the Poughkeepsie article looking decent, but I've always found myself overwhelmed by the vast amounts of historical info. Good luck with your new FAC, by the way. (And thanks Kingpin!) Juliancolton (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Poughkeepsie might actually be a better target, because it has about three times the daily page views Kingston does. I just picked Kingston because I keep seeing so many books on it. But going back to your earlier discussion over the eventual fate of the Albany article, it might be a good idea to have a discussion about the possibility of starting some kind of formal A-class review process for New York articles. I've helped out at GANs in the past, and I currently do a little prose review at FAC. I'll start a thread at WP:NY.
--Gyrobo (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Poughkeepsie might actually be a better target, because it has about three times the daily page views Kingston does. I just picked Kingston because I keep seeing so many books on it. But going back to your earlier discussion over the eventual fate of the Albany article, it might be a good idea to have a discussion about the possibility of starting some kind of formal A-class review process for New York articles. I've helped out at GANs in the past, and I currently do a little prose review at FAC. I'll start a thread at WP:NY.
- Seeing a rewrite of the Kingston article would be nice... let me know if you need any help with it. Between the two of us (and I'm sure other members of WPHV) there should be no shortage of available pictures. I've always wanted to get the Poughkeepsie article looking decent, but I've always found myself overwhelmed by the vast amounts of historical info. Good luck with your new FAC, by the way. (And thanks Kingpin!) Juliancolton (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- The rail trails are actually why I started editing. I really like researching un- and under-documented features of Ulster County, but in the long term I'd like to do for Kingston, New York what UpstateNYer did for Albany.
- Ditto the above, great to see you editing again :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- No big deal, Gyrobo. Beggars can't be choosers (and in this case I'm a beggar). When/If you're interested in helping, please do. upstateNYer 01:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi all, I just wanted to welcome Julian back (we never met, but I've been working on P:HVNY, and your initial work on it was just great) and apologize for not pitching in on the Gillibrand or new New York articles – but on the plus side, I remedied one of Julian's old comments, so no harm, no foul.
- Gillibrand, mainly because I'm working with one of her employees to do it (and, less my concern, but she is currently running for reelection in 2012; take note I'm not writing this out of support for her campaign or anything. I had always wanted to rewrite Shumer and Gillibrand's articles since they're NY's senators, so when I came across a user that is employed by her, it was a slam dunk. I'm pretty much done with the 'gun control' section, which I think you'll agree is quite neutral and balanced - if not, let me know). That said, if you feel more comfortable writing about the state, so be it. upstateNYer 18:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Neat Times Union article, but c'mon, where's my shout-out for being the one who nominated you to be an admin?! Though I always like to see the media associate Wikipedia with real, respectable people, so it looks like we have some credibility. That Albany FAC looks like quite the mess, so I wouldn't blame you if you decide GA is a good "finishing" point for the article, but let me know if you plan to take another shot at it sometime. Just curious, which of your two current projects would you say is the top priority? Juliancolton (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Albany went to FAC a while back. I didn't really enjoy the outcome of that discussion. :/ However the article did lead to this, though they didn't include a link, so the hits to the article weren't much more than a regular Saturday (I swear I wasn't whoring myself out, I just wanted the locals to realize what a source they had at their fingertips now). Whatever you think you can add to the Gillibrand or NY drafts would be great. They're both big projects and surprisingly I haven't been able to find anyone to help (with all the arguing that goes on at Talk:New York, you'd think some people would want a vested interest...). Anyway, glad you're back! upstateNYer 17:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
←wb, and let me know if I can help with anything. A-class and PR over at MILHIST are rocking, and you're welcome to participate, or I can help you import some of our methods to other PR and A-class processes, and pitch in. Did I say wb? - Dank (push to talk) 23:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
List of United States tornadoes from January to February 2011
Can you make sure List of United States tornadoes from January to February 2011 has good coding? (I was a former weather enthusiast, not as enthusiastic now :/) --Perseus8235 16:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. I'm a little confused by the hatnote "The SPC chart consider these to be December 31 tornadoes from 2010.", and also, the Jan 25 table seems a bit distorted, but other than that it's fine. Juliancolton (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- I was thinking, if you're active for a prolonged period of time, you get involved with bureaucrat tasks (e.g. CHU) you could go for RFB again. --Perseus8235 17:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thought, but that's not really one of my priorities at the moment. Juliancolton (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- I was thinking, if you're active for a prolonged period of time, you get involved with bureaucrat tasks (e.g. CHU) you could go for RFB again. --Perseus8235 17:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away
WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 00:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 February 2011
- News and notes: Gender gap and sexual images; India consultant; brief news
- In the news: Egyptian revolution and Wikimania 2008; Jimmy Wales' move to the UK, Africa and systemic bias; brief news
- WikiProject report: More than numbers: WikiProject Mathematics
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Longevity and Shakespeare cases close; what do these decisions tell us?
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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) 12:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2011 February newsletter
So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to 
The Bushranger (submissions) (first, with 487 points) and 
Hurricanehink (submissions) (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. 
Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to 
Jarry1250 (submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to 
Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.
Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.
Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 February 2011
- News and notes: Newbies vs. patrollers; Indian statistics; brief news
- Arbitration statistics: Arbitration Committee hearing fewer cases; longer decision times
- WikiProject report: In Tune with WikiProject Classical Music
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: AUSC applications open; interim desysopping; two pending cases
- Technology report: HTML5 adopted but soon reverted; brief news
Outline collaboration
Here's the latest addition to the religion section of Portal:Contents/Outlines. Wikipedia has rich coverage on this subject. Very interesting, especially from sociological and historical perspectives.
This is a call to all members of the Outline WikiProject and outline aficionados to help refine this outline. It needs annotations, missing topics added, and the entries in the general concepts section placed in more specific sections.
Come join in on the fun and get acquainted with members of the Outline WikiProject.