User talk:Unionhawk/Archives/2010/January

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

News and notes: Flagged revisions petitions, image donations, brief news

In the news: Criticism from climate change sceptic, decade in review

Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

I thought that I would take the time to say that I hope that you have a Happy New Year to you and your family Unionhawk!--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (Q4 2009)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 2, No. 6 — 4th Quarter, 2009
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2009, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation

VG Project Main pages
- Main project – talk
- Project category – talk
- Portal – talk
VG Project Departments
- Assessment – talk
- Cleanup – talk
- Peer review – talk
- Reference library – talk
- Newsletter – talk
- Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

Newsletter delivery by xenobot 21:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

News and notes: Fundraiser ends, content contests, image donation, and more

In the news: Financial Times, death rumors, Google maps and more

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

From the editor: Call for writers

2009 in review: 2009 in Review

Books: New Book namespace created

News and notes: Wikimania 2011, Flaggedrevs, Global sysops and more

In the news: Wikipedia in British schools, Hitler's Downfall meme, and more

Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

Please provide a valid reason for participating in the edit warring. If you had taken the time you would see that the vandalism was targetted at a single website and not meant to be a "link cleanup". Past history would show that the website being vandalised was targetted by a spam site many times in the past. Your edits are not appreciated by the FL community. 69.17.98.100 (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please check out Don't template the regulars. Re-reading ELNO, two of the links I removed should actually be included. I have restored those two. Also, please check out AGF. I shouldn't need to explain that my removal of a few too many links is good faith editing.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 17:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What?

Why warn me for 3RR when all I did was revert vandalism? The other user User:66.65.9.220 was removing content! Please remove my warning. **UPDATE** the user again removed content under a false reason and I can do nothing about it. Thanks!FLobotomy (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The content removal in question was the removal of a link, and, personally, I agree with him. Links to tutorials are not wanted per WP:ELNO, so, I'm going to do some link cleanup. (the article in question is FL Studio).--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 15:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

On the surface I can see why you think that way since you are ignorant to the value of said links. The link was a) useful, b) accesible, c) relevant, d) not affiliate spam. As a matter of fact it meets almost all criteria in WP:ELNO to the letter. As did the other sites that remained. You have no idea of the history of the vandalism done to the page in the past including the replacing of warbeats.com by users working for some affiliate spam sites like musicproducerpro.net. Warbeats is widely known as a valuable resource for FL Studio information and resources and thus a target for such vandals. You have harmed the FL Studio community. The original vandalism was not done properly with a reason. All proper steps to warn the user by multiple users was taken. All protocol was followed to the letter to resolve the situation per wikipedia rules. You pretty much ignored that or perhaps was too lazy to care. But I'll leave it where it stands since you the one with the power to do what YOU feel is right, and I'm just a nobody who tried to be a good wikipedian and follow the rules. FLobotomy (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, there's this awesome little thing called Ignore all rules. I feel that I was improving the 'pedia without the bureaucratic bullshit, so, by IAR, nothing that I did was improper. The removal of a link like that would be a content dispute, and an ongoing one at that, apparently.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 18:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To your credit you admit ignoring wikipedia rules in your actions. The problem is you did not take any time to investigate what was going on. Some of us have to follow rules. We aren't special like you. And when we take the time to follow those rules and play by the book, it sucks to have someone like you come by and just blast everyone instead of investigating. Here's a little advice, you will probably ignore, when you have two pearties in a dispute and one party tries to follow all protocol and the other shits on protocol, side with the one that follows protocol. FLobotomy (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you're not listening. One of the rules says to ignore a rule if you think it gets in the way of improving Wikipedia (see WP:IAR). I thought some rules got in my way of improving Wikipedia, so, I just ignored them and defaulted to improvement.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 01:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs: Normative science; Pemoline; Faraday; Katyusha; Noil; What a Girl Wants (film); Midget; River Orwell; Independence (mathematical logic); Black & Blue; Idempotency of entailment; Luminous energy; Cowlitz River; Applied science; Thomas; Philmont Training Center; Brian; Tundra; Justin

Cleanup: Dextroamphetamine; Peter Breggin; Cornel West
Merge: Acne vulgaris; Royal Gorge; Media center
Add Sources: Holly Brook; Dave Gregory; Left-handed specialist
Wikify: Battelle Memorial Institute; Marc Swayze; Bugs Moran
Expand: Ray Kroc; Pragmatic theory of truth; Electromagnetic field

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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)