October - November 2015

Hi SamWalton9, sorry it's taken so long, but we're finally finalizing the newsletter and we were hoping you could give us a few responses to some questions. I realize this is kind of last minute, but the nominal deadline is Oct 7, and we may run a little over-due this time around. Anyway whenever you get a chance, the questions are posted here and you can answer as many or as few as you like. Unanswered questions will be removed from the final publication so you don't appear to be ignoring anything. You can answer however you like, and in in as few or as many words as you see fit. Thanks in advance, and if you have any questions don't hesitate to clarify them with me at my talk page. -Thibbs (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your responses! One additional note: I just made this edit to one of your responses. I'm guessing that it was a typo, but if that incorrectly changed the meaning of your sentence then please revert. Thanks again! -Thibbs (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thibbs: Thanks; I think I'd just been typing for too long :) Let me know if there's anything else that doesn't make sense. Sam Walton (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam Walton. Just a question about Mariel Pamintuan. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariel Pamintuan (2nd nomination) as "delete", but for some reason a redirect to My Daughter Daniela has been newly created using the same name. Is this something typically done for deleted articles and considered OK per WP:BLAR? I've seen AfDs where the result has been "redirect", but this option was not discussed at all for this article.

In addition, the redirect was made by a just created account whose only three edits: one to create the redirect and two to User talk:Athena07112001. This seems a bit unusual because WP:R is not something a new editor is typically very familiar with, and also because Athena07112001 has no history of editing any article. Just curious. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: While I'm familiar neither with the exact letter of the law nor common practice with regards to creating redirects over deletions, this seems ok to me. We can't expect that every deletion discussion will notice plausible redirects so one being created after a deletion seems ok. Sam Walton (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. Just was curious as to how it works. - Marchjuly (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ahmed Mohamed clock incident. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how Launton Sports FC are allowed to have a wiki and Adderbury Park FC don't when they are in the same division?! All details on Adderbury wiki had sources to confirm everything on there, seems like a vindictive campaign against us if you ask me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.66.235 (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one is "allowing" them to have an article; if they shouldn't have one it can be nominated for deletion. I don't know much of anything about football club notability though so I'll ping JMHamo who seems to know more. There's no vindictive campaign here. Sam Walton (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Edit Filter Barnstar
	I would like to present to you this highly specialized barnstar. You began clearing out the years old requested filters backlog, initiated the edit filter mailing list, and made the long-overdue guideline a reality. Thank you for all of your considerable efforts to improve edit filter management across the project. — MusikAnimal talk 17:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, here's the barnstar I've been holding out on giving you! A great pleasure it is to award this. I may have been there all along, but you lead the pack and you know it ;) Cheers, friend — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MusikAnimal, this means a lot. I'm really happy that all this change has happened, and thank you for your help along the way! I'd have given up a long time ago if not for your helpful insights. Sam Walton (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

In the controversies section of the article a blog is sourced for one of the statements from the producer. Said blog is referencing a tweet by the producer. I replaced the blog link with a direct link to the tweet but our pal Osh33m reverted the change with the vague statement "the original ref was filled in". I looked up the guidelines and didn't find a definitive ruling on blogs vs direct tweets as sources. Can you help clarify? If he's gonna start an edit war I'd prefer to know what I'm getting into. Thanks! Hogo~enwiki (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hogo~enwiki: In this case I agree that the direct link to the twitter post would be preferable to a blog post containing it. There's no need for us to have the information surrounded by some blogger's writing. That said, I've taken it out entirely. Given that the only source was a single tweet with what seems like one person disagreeing with the character, I don't think we can really claim any controversy here. Sam Walton (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Thanks!Hogo~enwiki (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we're back to square one on this issue. Is that the end of it? Hogo~enwiki (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hogo~enwiki: Indeed, I just haven't found the time to look through the entire section as is being demanded. I'll get around to it. Sam Walton (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:OpenIndiana. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

16:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Samwalton9, I had previously created a Wikipedia page for the actress Carrie Barton. I see that it is now been deleted by you(as of July 2015) and I wanted to know why. There was no nonfactual information on the page and it was supported with her IMDB page^[1]. I would like to either get this page back or create another one but I first wanted to know why the last one was deleted so that it does not happen again. Is it simply because it had not been updated in a while? If so, we can make sure to do that. If it was for another reason please let me know as this should not have been deleted. --Smithy915 (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Smithy915: Hi there. First of all you should stick to one account; I notice this is a different account to the one you wrote the article on. As for the article, it was deleted after a deletion discussion found that the subject wasn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Subjects require coverage in multiple reliable sources to be eligible for an article. Sam Walton (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited! Join us remotely! World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science

Dates: 8 to 29 November 2015 Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event Host/Facilitator: Women in Red (WiR) in collaboration with Women scientists: Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you! Sponsor: New York Academy of Sciences Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR in parallel with a "physical" event during the afternoon of Sunday, November 22 in New York City. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in science to participate. As the virtual edit-a-thon stretches over three weeks, new participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in the field. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and learn more: →here← --Rosiestep (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to Rationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:

• Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 330 featured pictures in the final round.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 160 did you knows in the final round (310 in all rounds).
• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for 26 featured articles in all rounds.
• West Virginian (submissions) wins the prize for fourth place
• Calvin999 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Rationalobserver (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Harrias (submissions) wins a final 8 prize and the FL prize for 11 featured lists.
• Rodw (submissions) wins the most prizes: a final 8 prize, the GA prize for 41 good articles, and the topic prize for a 13-article good topic and an 8-article featured topic, both in round 3.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for the most news articles in round 3.

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why this article was deleted. Although there were more delete !votes in the AfD, I wonder (with all due respect) if you considered the merit of those rationales; for instance, one user simply said "nothing here"; was that an empty article with no sources or something? In addition, it was argued that the subject wasn't a studio, when I provided proof (even before the article was up for deletion) that it is indeed a studio. Moreover, it won an award for Best New Line. Finally, if all else failed, why couldn't it have been merged into Girlfriends Films? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Erpert: You were the only voter to vote keep, and 5 other editors (plus the nomination) voted delete for, on the whole, valid rationales. If you want to merge the content to another article I'm happy to restore the article to your userspace, let me know. Alternatively you can take this to WP:DRV, but I stand by my close. Sam Walton (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would indeed like you to restore it to my userspace, but I'm still a little confused; I mean, winning an award means nothing in terms of notability now? (Girl Candy Films, another article I created, won the same award but has never been challenged.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Erpert:  Done, User:Erpert/Skow for Girlfriends Films Sam Walton (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

In your closing statement did you want to say anything about the decimal point? Is it possible/ not possible for this to be made more visible? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: I left it at 'further discussion required' since I didn't think that a clear consensus on that point could be taken from the discussion. Some voters said it should be less, other said nothing, which could be taken as supporting 3 decimal places. Sam Walton (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But as per User:Gareth Griffith-Jones, I actually meant the size and location of the point symbol - it's usually the same as a full stop? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: Ah I see. I don't think enough opinions were raised about this for a consensus to be drawn. If you think this is an important issue I would bring it up separately, though perhaps at WT:FILM or MOS:NUM, since this would be applicable to all film articles (full stop is the current default). Sam Walton (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Gareth may feel more strongly about it than I do. I mentioned the comma separator, as part of my response, and I felt a bit like I had brought a pork-pie to a bar mitzvah. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for applying to become an SPI Clerk. At this time we have decided to take you on to the December 2015 training. Please watchlist the page and keep updated with it as time goes on. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)