User talk:Churn and change/Archive 2

This 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.

Hi Churn and Change. I made the translation you asked in talk page of Tenedos. I am also re-inserting information about the old mosque together with the translation under references. Let me know if that is OK for you. Filanca (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation. I think you should include exactly what it says: that the mosque and school had been destroyed and the mosque was reconstructed. Destroyed "by Venetians" isn't there in the source; could have been during a battle. Churn and change (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance in closing the RfC at Talk:MassResistance#RfC Should SPLC "hate group" designation be in the lead?. I wonder if you could help out by explaining your closure a bit more. I interpreted it as saying there was no consensus to include the SPLC's general reason for hate group designations, but it seems from Talk:MassResistance#How to creatively misinterpret an RFC and use it to justify edit-warring. that other editors disagree with my interpretation, and an edit war has resulted. StAnselm (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I notice there is a new RFC, so the issue is moot. The other editors are saying there is no consensus to remove the material either, and the new RFC would seemingly settle both issues. Good luck. Churn and change (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

Happy to help out with George M. Stratton. I've started a good article review here: Talk:George M. Stratton/GA1. GabrielF (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Churn and change! Thank you for closing the Afd discussion at

Thanks for the tips. I had added "non-admin closure" at the edit summary; will add it with the link at the top too for other closures I have done. Churn and change (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

What is the reason for editing an archive?[1] If you want to summarize the discussion, a more appropriate way is to open a new discussion on the talk page with a link to the archive, and your summary. Adding a summary to a discussion that ended a month ago is shall I say confusing? While it is fine to retrieve an incorrectly archived section to continue discussion, editing it in the archive, and then retrieving it as a closed discussion is shall I say somewhat strange? Or should I say, wtf? (What was this for?) Apteva (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Per request here:

WP:AN. Search for "Wikipedia talk:#Manual of Style/Archive 129#RFC: shall changes in beginning of sentence case be allowed in quotations". Procedure pretty much what was asked for. Churn and change (talk

) 02:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

(moved from Apteva talk to keep discussion in one place) Good chance this (WP:MOS talk) could be seen as a "summarizing" away from scrutiny. Churn and change (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Either i) or ii) would have been fine. (see WP:AN) The combination of the two did not work as intended. Apteva (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the big problem was I didn't add an edit summary (creating a section produces just a default summary) and so, yes, would have looked as if a fully-done discussion plopped in from nowhere. I find it funny actually, though I realize you did waste time trying to track it. Sorry for that. Right now, the summary itself isn't visible in the talk page, but probably not a big deal since there didn't seem much that was controversial about it. Churn and change (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

See if you had unarchived it first the close edit summary would be on the talk page, but that is not as important as having the edit summary in the same place as the item summarized. I would have seen the link, clicked on it and seen what you had done. No time wasted. Since you collapsed the discussion I could not even find it in a search. Apteva (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

But mainly I could not find it because it wasn't in any of the archives. Had your edit summary ("new section"), said "unarchive from Archive 129", and I had seen it, that would have helped too. But no worries, apology not necessary but accepted. By the way, clicking on "New section" at the top does not allow entering your own edit summary. Apteva (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup, that last point was the issue. I was worrying more about whether the summary was ok, and missed the issue of the strangeness of unarchiving with no links. Anyways... Churn and change (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A fix is to make a small whitespace edit - add a space, take out a space, and save it with an edit summary. See I on the other hand was much more interested in figuring out where all that discussion came from, than what the rfc closing summary said. Apteva (talk) 07:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the triad of reviewers! I've made a centralized place for our assessment of consensus

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Armitage Miller, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Null (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts on the subject on

Technically those are

WP:Secondary sources. Practically, New York Times is a reliable source, and most articles use it as a primary source for such information, on the tacit understanding secondary sources will cover the issue down the road, and then we would switch. If that doesn't happen, we take out the stuff. Churn and change (talk

) 20:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You can delete now if you want. I was able to download it as pdf. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Churn, in connection with the discussion you have been having with Darkfrog please see

Hello, Churn and change. You have new messages at Toshio Yamaguchi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I have done, you can protect the link! Thanks! --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sir! I downloaded it on the same day in next few minutes (as posted above). You can delete the doc/protect the link (to protect click on "Share" and make it private)! Thanks! --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

	change
	Thank you for writing articles in collaboration, such as William Robinson Brown, and for striving for quality articles in positive interaction, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I've read your comments on the Monty Hall RfC briefly, but I will be busy with work until this weekend before I can make my own substantive comments. From my brief look though, it sounds like we are roughly on the same page about the matter.

Since the editors seem to have been at it for a few years now, I am sure they can wait for a few days for an answer. Yeah, I think on the core issues we agree. Might be good to flesh out details since I suspect otherwise the dispute will just flare anew on interpreting the RFC summation. Churn and change (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I am Professor Krosnick's research assistant. At his request, I am working with other research assistants on restoring his old wikipedia page that was taken due to a copyright violation. Professor Krosnick holds the copyright to the material in question, so we are working now to lift the ban. We are also in the process of finding more content for his page.

Professor Krosnick and I have noticed you are working on creating a new page for him. We both really appreciate all the work have done and see you have compiled a lot of great content. We hope the original page will be restored soon and would love for you to contribute your information there. We would also welcome any help you might be able to provide in getting his original page restored.

We are undergrads and work as research assistants under his direction in his research lab PPRG (Political Psychology Research Group). You are welcome to contact us there, or visit the lab if you are on campus, located in the third floor of building 120 (McClatchy Hall).

Professor Krosnick really appreciates the work you have done! Hope to hear from you soon :) PPRGkrosnick (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly is the public domain file Krosnick uploaded to WikiCommons? Also, do you object to starting with the version I have in my sandbox, and adding to that? I can transfer that version as is to article space, and you can go ahead and use all those references to pull in all the content. Sourcing from a public-domain CV is allowed, but the article will be higher quality if you can find sources independent of the subject for that information. In this case, the sources I have, I think, cover all the information in the CV itself. Churn and change (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I went ahead and dumped all the information I have onto the page, replacing the copyright tag since it is no longer applicable. I will try to pull in more information from the many sources there into the article, but feel free to do that yourself, since I can't guarantee any schedule. Churn and change (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Churn and change, I'm concerned with the recent editing of the biography by PPRGkrosnick, which includes primary-sourced sections, one of which is on the Political Psychology Research Group. I've tagged the article for COI, and alerted the above account as well. Since you've worked on this article recently, your input would be most welcome. Cheers, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you should take this up on the talk page and discuss the specific issues (the primary-sourced material associated with claims other than basic things about the subject). You probably can go

WP:BOLD and revert the PPRG part and start a discussion on the talk page on why it should be secondary-sourced, and probably compressed quite a bit. I think you could point out the article is about Krosnick, not his lab. Might be good to be a bit gentle about it, since we do want to attract and retain skilled editors. Churn and change (talk

) 22:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll broach discussion at the article talk page later. Yes, re: skilled editors....however, if it's a

WP:SPA with conflict of interest issues, it behooves them to learn the ropes sooner rather than later. Additionally, it's likely that they're exceedingly intelligent, so the policies ought not throw them. Thanks, 76.248.149.47 (talk

) 22:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Will wait until tomorrow or whenever you have time. No need to rush. BTW, did you also scan the relevant footnotes, which should be towards the end of the book (around page 400)? bamse (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, good you reminded me of the endnotes. Will do them tomorrow. Churn and change (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. bamse (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

When you closed this AFD, you never left the template on the article's talk page dictating that it'd been ”ominated and the result was keep. Thanks...Go Phightins! (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that. I will figure out how to do it and, well, do it. Churn and change (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Churn and change (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty belated, but thanks. Go Phightins! 03:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but it wouldn't be proper for me to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E Health Point - because I was a participant in the discussion. Discussions are supposed to be closed by an uninvolved person. In any case, I am not an administrator, and non-admin closures are supposed to be done only in drop-dead-obvious cases. In this case there is one "delete" !vote (the nominator's) and two "keep" !votes (yours and mine); that't not exactly an overwhelming consensus. It won't hurt for this discussion to wait until somebody comes along to close it. MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I thought you were the nom and the other person just a "re-lister." Yeah, in that case, it requires an uninvolved editor close (not necessarily admin, since there are no delete votes). Looking at it again, I see the nom gave no reason except "advertisement" which my eyes glazed over, since there were real ads on the page. Sorry for the confusion. Churn and change (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

For the speedy help finding those sources about the storm, that is much appreciated. There's an ongoing discussion about verification of sources and databases at

Hi, I think you should name the exact agency—Xinhua General News (they have a bunch such as Xinhua, Xinhua economic news and so on). These are all from LexisNexis. The MLA actually has a standard for citing a periodical publication in a database (MLA Manual, 3rd ed, 7.7.4, pp. 220–221). An example:

Richardson, Lynda. "Minority Students Languish in Special Education System." New York Times 6 Apr. 1994, late ed.:A1+, Pt. 1 of a series, A Class Apart: Special Education in New York City. LexisNexis. Web. 15 Aug. 2007.

That last date is the date of retrieval. Churn and change (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ok, saw the other discussion. For somebody who really wanted to verify the stuff, yeah, that was easily more than enough info. But using the MLA format is probably good. Churn and change (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I'll pass it along. I've used what I need to with the links you gave me. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jon Krosnick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Churn. I certainly didn't intend to make that edit. I don't know what happened. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC).

Oh, okay, no problem, you might want to let the other editor know. Churn and change (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

We have a complaint about the infobox photo of WR Brown in the lede; can you find a free (or freer) version of it? That one was scanned from the video, I wouldn't mind finding a better quality copy. The Brown Bulletin contains a better copy, not sure if that's where you also got the one of Mr. and Mrs. Brown, but if all photos in that publication are now PD, then maybe we should get all of them uploaded. (Frankly, I'd like a better crop of the photo of him on the horse, too, it's a nice horse!) Do you have the technical knowhow to do this, as it would be complicated for me...? Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 21:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the pony. Yeah, let me look at uploading the stuff to Wikicommons. Note that there really is no way to prove when any photo was ever published for the first time. I am going to argue a company bulletin would know how to tag photos the right way when they pick them up from other sources, and so those are the first publications. I do have the technical know-how for cropping, but not much of artistic skill at the stuff. Let us revisit this after I upload the other photos. Churn and change (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

K, done; I am fairly certain the PD rationale will be ok. Put all of them in a category William Robinson Brown. Let me know what you think should be in the lead—one of those images, or a cropped version? Churn and change (talk) 05:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll mess with them. I'd love it if you could do a crop of WR Brown on the horse, just him and his entire horse... a vertical crop (as opposed to a horizontal one). Wish I knew which horse it was, and the people who did the Brown Bulletin actually committed a massive insult to Brown and the animal by calling a group of Arabians "Thoroughbreds" -- the breed that was their hottest rivals! (the correct term is "purebred.") LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 19:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Next challenge: Can we "do" a legal version of this photo? The site it's at doesn't pass muster per WP:RS, but this photo of this horse is in dozens of (copyrighted) books about Arabians and I think it's got to be PD by now. The horse was foaled in 1904, the image was most certainly taken prior to 1923 (because he's young-looking), and Brown undoubtably published the image in a sales catalogue or something, but I can't "prove" it. Can you help? A couple alternate images are here [2]. Montanabw^(talk) 20:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I see Abu Zeyd here, in what looks like a scanned page. Do you know which book or magazine that is from. There is another from the 1918 Arabian Stud book: here. Despite being PD, I find a version of the book costing over $400; can you find out the page number this photo is from? Note that photos in magazines/books between 1923 and 1964 also would work if copyright wasn't renewed. The law is here, but you needn't worry about that; if you can find a publication of an available photo prior to 1964, lemme know the details of the publication (ISBN/Book title/author/year of publication and page number) and I can check and upload it. Churn and change (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

If it was published in the 1918 stud book, we are good to go. Yeah, a print set of the old stud books are worth a lot to those who care; a copy of Lady Wentworth's book is worth quite a bit these days. Brown's first edition of The Horse of the Desert is so pricy it scares me, the 1949 reprint is less daunting, about $40. I don't know what page of the stud book has the photo, but I can probably find out, email AHA if nothing else... Montanabw^(talk) 05:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The page number would help, since I can then source the photo directly to the book instead of to that website (the website can be used as a convenience link in the description). Churn and change (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find, though don't hold your breath. Montanabw^(talk) 04:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem I have is one version I found here is just a listing of horses with no photos. That raises the question of how reliable the claim here is that the photo is from that book. Churn and change (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I have seen hardcopy versions of the stud book and I know some photos are included in them. I think I'll have to either write the registry or a researcher who has a set. Montanabw^(talk) 07:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Update per User_talk:Ealdgyth, if Abu Zeyd was used by the Remount, there might be photos of him in those sources, if US Govt then free. You have any experience digging around in those places? I can do some digging, but I'm not up on how to search some of those sources. Montanabw^(talk) 17:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The Army isn't all that great about putting photos of even its people online. See the rationale for File:George_Malcom_Stratton_at_Berkeley.jpg. For an actual photo from them, see File:Flickr_-_The_U.S._Army_-_Comprehensive_Soldiers_Fitness_(1)cropped.jpg. The Army has a Flicker page, and links to other pages from there. I will search more. Churn and change (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, uploaded the 1918 Stud book version of the photo. Since I assume you can make out the horse is indeed Abu Zeyd, the RS part is probably not an issue. At Wikimedia, they are more lax about RS criteria (since we aren't citing anything from there), and the publication and date from the photo itself should be ok. For the cropping, there is the problem a straight-line crop would cut off either Brown's horse's nose or we would have the next guy's boots visible. Will see what that looks like. Churn and change (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I think a wee bit of the other guy's boot is not a problem, you'll notice the crop we have has the guy's knee in it already. On the other image, I seriously wonder if that Abu Zeyd image is actually a painting -- or maybe photo that was significantly retouched, especially in the background. Thoughts? (Doesn't matter; I put it into the article, but the other image out there is more clearly a photo, though not as pretty). Montanabw^(talk) 22:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the Abu Zeyd image itself is a photo, the background probably a painting. As long as you are sure the image captures the features of the horse (even to me, a nonexpert, looks like it does), and as long as the image is from 1918, we should be ok. Yeah, will crop that photo. Churn and change (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded a cropped version of Brown on a horse. If that doesn't look fine to you, let me know; trying that a few times wouldn't be that taxing. Churn and change (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure the one image is Abu Zeyd (a meticulous comparison of white markings to a known-correct image is generally the most effective way to tell with those old photos). Shoot me a link to the WR Brown new upload, feel free to swap the image if you think it an improvement. BTW, notice all the categories I added to the Abu Zeyd image? If you want to have great fun with the others linked at the Crabbet category, there are many fun folks there... don't know if you just "do" Americans, but **cough** Wilfrid Scawen Blunt is a kick, and his article really would benefit from expansion. (Fascinating assholes with a complicated life history are always fun to study...)Montanabw^(talk) 19:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Follow up: Put the photo of Brown on the gray horse into the article, but I think you should consider a re-crop of that image, re-upload under same name... basically, center the horse -- there is too much sky and too much border behind the horse... maybe let a wee bit of the next guy's knee show so that the horse's nose isn't quite so close to the edge. Just a centering and balancing, if that isn't too much trouble? Montanabw^(talk) 19:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I added a bunch of cropped images. You can check and see which one is best; I can also easily do more if you think one of them can be fixed up better. Churn and change (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The top one now at File:Brown with fellow riders.JPG is the best, but maybe move it to take over the other crop (so we don't have to change it on the article page) and restore the group photo at that "fellow riders" title, who knows, someone may want to use it some day. Montanabw^(talk) 22:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm very sorry that I haven't had a chance to finish the review for George M. Stratton. I've been busy in real life the past couple of weeks. I will finish the review this weekend. Best, GabrielF (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you add a line at the top of your closure statement saying which of the proposals you think pass and fail? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Made it clear at the top proposal 1 has consensus. Also added a line saying we read the RFC proposal, debate and previous threads including the ArbCom one (which I Jethrobot posted on our discussion page). There seems to be a discussion on whether Guy Macon correctly worded Hogbin's contribution to the proposal text, so I wanted to make sure they understood we didn't go just by the proposal text, but looked at everything.Churn and change (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem :) - I just thought if it wasn't explicit that there was room for future debate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I changed the wording at the top to address the "title" issue: "The editors discussed the RFC summation after considering the proposal, entire debate, and previous threads on the issue, beyond the wording of the request summary at

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#MontyHall and the wording of the RFC itself including the titles of the proposals, here (link to our discussion page)" Churn and change (talk

) 01:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Churn and change. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
Message added 20:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WhiteWriter^speaks 20:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

	The WP:RX Barnstar
	Thank you for assisting me at WP:RX. Jethro B 22:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. Churn and change (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, see [3] The investigations are closed, courtesy-blanked and moved to a subpage which is not indexed by search engines. According to this site the closure should be done by a CCI clerk or an admin. The only clerk listed there is a person with over 100,000 edits and clearly busy with a whole lot of stuff. I think you should undo your comment at

Thanks for the note.

I saw the archiving, but didn't notice the subsequent cb, as well.

Thanks again. - jc37 00:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the paper, it's downloaded. Best, Filip em (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I replied at the AfD. Go Phightins! 22:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll let you know when I'm finished - I've already gotten some incorporated and should be done in the next day or two. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

For your efforts to save Thulasi Nair. I will turn the red link blue the day the film gets released. Anbu121 (talk me) 15:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I've completed my close of the Monty Hall RfC. If I could, I'd buy all of us a drink! :P

Yay! Want to take a look at

Irving I. Gottesman? GA reviews aren't that hard, if you haven't done one before. The psychology section is very quiet. Churn and change (talk

) 21:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I've actually done a few GA reviews before, but it's been a while. I will check that one out in the next few days.

bot

!) 22:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I've started a review, and left my comments there. I'll be watching the page, so you can leave comments there. I'll also be watching the article for changes.

bot

!) 22:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for going through that. I have replied to your GA comments. Basically, made the suggested changes; the only major issue, I guess, is the photo part (Gottesman won't own the copyright to his photo, the photographer would, and, yes, WikiCommons does crib about that—see File:Jon_Krosnick_2012.jpg; getting somebody to take a photo of him and then upload to WikiCommons won't work; since the photo has no commercial value and is owned by U. Minn., I don't think the fair-use rationale is going to be legally challenged). Churn and change (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

At one point you left a comment on the Talk Page of the above subject, so I am notifying you of the discussion on this entry at

Thanks a lot. I have downloaded those files. If you need space in Dropbox, most probably they give 500 MB space for every successful invitation you can invite me at titoofcity gmail! Thanks again! --Tito Dutta (talk)

Thanks for that, but I solved the problem by creating multiple accounts, and activating some on some PCs. Churn and change (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

C&C, sorry about the deleting of the ps= on the Island page. It wasn't intentional, and wasn't what I was doing on that edit, so thanks for the catch! My question now arises out of that though and is just curiosity: why don't we want the period? Adding the ps= after each sfn adds approx 1,000 bytes to the page. I'm not against the practice necessarily, if you respond "I don't like periods, so they aren't there" that'll be cool with me, just wondering what the thought behind it is. Thanks. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I don't have strong opinions on these issues. It is just that at an FA review I saw a comment: "no periods after sentence fragments" in this context. I don't have a problem with having full stops there, but we do need to be consistent. Churn and change (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on consistency. And if you saw someone bring it up, that's a good enough reason for me. Once again just pure curiosity on my part rather than any questioning. Cheers. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I am hoping that dealing with this won't become a full time job, but Rick and Martin are still engaging in their dispute:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Problem statement

I purposely had Rick and Martin write the RfC and agree on the wording just so that neither could later say that the RfC did not properly represent their position (see User_talk:Guy Macon#On the Question of Whether the RfC was Altered to see how that one is coming along), and I was quite clear in asking them to both confirm that the RfC covered all areas of dispute.

Looking at the big picture, I would very much like to help Martin and Rick to resolve their dispute so I can work with the other editors to reach consensus on any secondary disputes. I don't want to be coming back to you three forever as I play Whac-A-Mole with new aspects of the dispute. Do you have any suggestions as to what my next dispute resolution step should be if this content dispute continues? Alas, Wikipedia:Binding content discussions never took off and this has already been to MedCom and ArbCom.

(Sent to all three closers.) --Guy Macon (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think they seem to have started on another issue not central to the previous RFC but touched on there: how to describe the problem. Probably the same approach of letting them debate it and then start an RFC would probably work for that as well. There is some editing required to bring the article into compliance with the RFC consensus (criticism of vos Savant has to be toned down and the section should be title "Further analysis of " instead of "criticism of ") but the order of the solution sets and the non-mixing part are already there. Churn and change (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have disputed your RfC close here. Please consider reverting your close and letting a more experienced user do the job. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If you object, you are free to revert it directly, or ask for another opinion at

WP:AN where the closure request was posted. Churn and change (talk

) 18:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Churn and Change - I've undone this closure; my reasoning being that non-admins shouldn't really close debates of that magnitude. There's a discussion going on here. Thanks for your understanding! —
  foxj
  18:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

  I see Fluffernutter already linked to that. My bad. —

  foxj

  18:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

  I think you need to update the request at

  WP:AN. Churn and change (talk

  ) 19:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help in obtaining the papers. I really appreciate it. Cheers! Yazan (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hiya! I will be glad to do this review, but I can't start until semester break in 3 weeks. If its still available then, I'll duck its junebug ;) Okay? Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be fine; I don't think anybody will pick it up in three weeks, psychology most avoid. Churn and change (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Irving Gottesman, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Depression and Human intelligence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Churn, I'm back to working on Brown. I changed a few ref names so they are clear to the reader in the footnotes and now am debating which direction we should go with the "sources" section, as there is some inconsistency that should be smoothed out. Basically, we could do it the way you were heading, which is to have virtually ALL sources in the bibliography section and just sfns for the refs section, OR we could put only hardcopy books (and maybe the video) into the sources section, keeping all periodicals in the refs. Right now, we have a mix; Churchill is in a periodical, yet is in the refs, while other periodicals are only in the refs and not the bibliography. I've seen articles pass FA either way, but wondering what you can find in MOS to guide us. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 18:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think if we are citing different page numbers of a book, or different time points of a video, then the citation has to be via {{sfn}} because we shouldn't duplicate the source part. So, if we refer to page 5 of book1 in one place and page 7 of book1 in another, then we need to go the sfn route for book1, since the {{r}} template doesn't allow for page numbers. If we are citing just a source as is multiple times, then using {{r}} looks fine, as there is no duplication involved. Churn and change (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking at it, I think we have to use {{sfn}} templates for Conn, Edwards, Forbis, and the two Uphem-Bornstein sources; no choice. For all other sources, we could just use {{r}} since we do not reference different page numbers in different places. I think we do need some consistency for the {{sfn}} tags though: probably last name where author is known, or full title if there is no author? As of now, it is quite hard to check where a source like the "Report of Forestry Commission. New Hampshire Forestry Commission. 1918. pp. 27–31." is used. Churn and change (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm OK with sfn as needed. I was looking at my Chicago manual of style and the default is that where there is no author, then the publication is the "author" followed by the title of the work. Or, whatever Harv refs say to do. I made more streamlined refs for the footnotes, all that's needed there is enough to identify the source in the biblio. I am also OK with as short as possible ref names (I wish we could keep "ref name" because you can have an abbreviated name create the fuller cite when needed.) I realize we may need to narrow down pages on that Forestry commission source, and probably the Brown bulletin too.  ;-P I also must find the page for the Wentworth book ref... Montanabw^(talk) 00:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the title is what is used if there is no author. For sorting purposes, the initial "a," "an," or "the" would be ignored. The harv refs automatically generate the "author, year" style ref if there is an author; otherwise we are required to manually set things up with a |ref = {{sfnRef|Tag here}} at the end of the {{cite}} template. Churn and change (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I put in the above for what is right now in "sources." The Chicago House style does allow a "short title" form (16.47/page 605, 15th ed.). That drops the initial article and chooses the first few words from the title. Note that the Chicago system is not based on links, and so contains enough info in the footnote (actually endnote) tag to get to the source in the reference-list/biblio. I think that is now true even for use since the author/year or title/year system does uniquely identify sources for us too. Churn and change (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I actually vastly prefer the periodical title as "author" over the short title format. It isn't an earthshaking issue, but it looks a lot more elegant to say "North Adams Transcript" than "William R. Brown, 80, fire tower pioneer, Williams man, dies." But at least, let's keep things short and "unclunky" Perhaps abbreviated title with periodical, which is more useful to the reader: "William R. Brown", North Adams Transcript, perhaps? Montanabw^(talk) 18:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree it is clunky. Readers should be able to quickly locate where all a particular source is being used. It would have helped if sfn provided a backlink to the first occurrence of the tag in notes. Short title and publication name looks fine, since we are on our own here. The {{sfn}} documentation says: "Some sources do not have a single author with a last name, such as a magazine article or a report from a government institution. There is no consensus (in Wikipedia or among citation styles) about how to format author-date citations to works that do not have a specific author." I will change to a short-name/publication style tag. Churn and change (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Back online, out sick a few days, better now. Back to work on the article, I guess!  :). Montanabw^(talk) 21:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, hey, welcome back. Didn't get a chance to fix up the reference/source stuff, now we have a plan. Churn and change (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I moved the three one-page refs from sources to refs, left the rest, but see article talk page, I think we might have to paginate two of the magazine articles, (don't wanna but might hafta) but we can discuss there. Montanabw^(talk) 23:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey CNC-- I've endeavored to address your comments in the article and/or in the GAN, and I think I have most of them. I also am in full agreement that the article is in much better shape as a result! Thanks so much for your feedback. However, as there was a lot to cover, you'd better take another look and make sure I haven't missed something. You can let me know here (or at the GAN) if there's something else I've neglected.

I will pick it up in a day or two. The main issues were the secondary-sources and the images. Churn and change (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the main issues left are two minor things: address the "testing effect" comment by either taking the text out or stating you would want it in—I will mark the issue as "resolved" for either case, and adding page numbers for the book references. From my side, I need to check the citations to ensure there are enough secondary ones, and that will take a a few days, and we should be done. Churn and change (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've attempted to address the above points. Let me know if you need more secondary sources-- I can certainly rake through the interwebs again to dig some up.

bot

!) 22:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Mail call! Scartol • Tok 03:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

My behavior and actions yesterday night were innappropriate and was from a result high stress and fatique. I am here to submit a statement of apology to you for conveying that behavior toward you. I will now be going on a Wikibreak while I have such a stress as it is affecting my judgement on wiki and what you experienced, was me venting from a bad day. If you have any follow up concerns or questions or comments or a mere thank you to write, I would recommend doing so on my page as that would get my attention.—

You would have opposed me at my RfA last April, as my contribs aren't any better due to 6 years gnoming around and being willing to make little differences, add sources, reliability and consistency. I had only create 18 articles, no GA, FA, one DYK, no B or better. I'm just not "great" at prose, even if I would like to think I'm pretty good at helping people, being fair and objective, and knowing my limits. You know, admin things. My best content has actually come after I got the bit. I certainly don't begrudge you for any vote, I respect differences in opinion, but I do think the most important things that admin do don't even use the tools. I also can think of 100 non-admin who are better qualified to close RFCs on content. Policy, maybe we admin have an edge because we have to use them so much, but not on content. We admin aren't "super editors", just janitors whose main job is to be fair, calm and thoughtful, and humble enough to admit a mistake. Just some food for thought. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

This particular candidate doesn't have the mop-style experience; you did (Afd and was it DRN?); his main qualification is a long service to Wikipedia, mostly in article space. You have argued lack of mop-up experience shouldn't matter; I agree. But if the candidate isn't qualified either with mop-style experience or with high-quality editing experience, I am not sure just seniority, a good attitude, and no controversies alone should get him the bit. There is also a second point: RFC closures are indeed posted at the Administrator's Noticeboard, not at Village Pump in all its variations, and editors typically ask for admin closure of RFCs dealing with content disputes, including wording and presentation disputes. You are right neither policy nor guidelines bestow this role on admins, but, in practice, that is where we are at. Churn and change (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I admit I had extensive experience with AFDs, 1600 of them or so, and that was during the Dark Days at AFD, but it wasn't closing them. Not much at DRN, mainly ANI and some general mediation. But actually, I've gone out of my way and posted requests to close RfCs on many, many non-admin's talk pages. I actually work hard to get non-admin part of the process, as well as help them to get up to speed to become future admin. I actually recommend that non-admin do NOT close AFDs however. But the place would fall apart if not for the efforts of non-admin. Not just content, I mean the boards. I don't want admin to be pushed up too far on a pedestal, or some of them might start thinking they really are special. And we aren't. We are just regular Joes with extra tools, just as fallible as anyone else, which is why humility and demeanor are so important.

Again, I understand and respect your vote, which is why I didn't reply there. Since I've gotten the bit, I've found that most of my "qualifications" were meaningless, and it all changes once you get the bit. I tend to think it should be easier to get the bit, and easier to lose it, and that anyone who can prove they can be trustworthy should be given a chance. I'm a much better editor than I was before the bit, and I am not extraordinary in anyway. If someone isn't likely to abuse the bit and has good general experience here, I'm inclined to support. No hard feelings if you disagree :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, just stopping by to let you know that I've quoted some comments of yours here regarding a previous discussion at RS/N. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hope your wikibreak is going well! Hope to see you back soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Churn and change, I'm beginning the copy-edit you requested to the above article at the GOCE Request page. Please feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert my changes if I'm doing something I shouldn't. Cheers,

Done - I converted the mixed referencing system to <ref></ref> and moved unused references to the 'Sources' section to avoid that huge whitespace in the references section. Please feel free to contact me about any issues arising from the copy-edit. Cheers,

Baffle gab1978 (talk

) 02:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey Churn! We are almost ready to take WR Brown to FA, Want to join the fun? Just trying to find proof of pre-1923 publication on the photo I added of *Astraled, don't know if you can help with that; I've emailed some libraries to see what they can do. Montanabw^(talk) 23:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR ) 00:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 21 January 2013 News and notes: Requests for adminship reform moves forward WikiProject report: Say What? — WikiProject Linguistics Featured content: Wazzup, G? Delegates and featured topics in review Arbitration report: Doncram case continues Technology report: Data centre switchover a tentative success Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 28 January 2013 In the media: Hoaxes draw media attention Recent research: Lessons from the research literature on open collaboration; clicks on featured articles; credibility heuristics WikiProject report: Checkmate! — WikiProject Chess Discussion report: Administrator conduct and requests News and notes: Khan Academy's Smarthistory and Wikipedia collaborate Featured content: Listing off progress from 2012 Arbitration report: Doncram continues Technology report: Developers get ready for FOSDEM amid caching problems Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Brown William Robinson Brown is officially up for FA. Just an FYI. Montanabw(talk) 00:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 04 February 2013 Special report: Examining the popularity of Wikipedia articles News and notes: Article Feedback Tool faces community resistance WikiProject report: Land of the Midnight Sun Featured content: Portal people on potent potables and portable potholes In the media: Star Trek Into Pedantry Technology report: Wikidata team targets English Wikipedia deployment Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 11 February 2013 Op-ed: An article is a construct – hoaxes and Wikipedia Featured content: A lousy week WikiProject report: Just the Facts In the media: Wikipedia mirroring life in island ownership dispute News and notes: UK chapter governance review marks the end of a controversial year Discussion report: WebCite proposal Technology report: Wikidata client rollout stutters Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 18 February 2013 WikiProject report: Thank you for flying WikiProject Airlines Technology report: Better templates and 3D buildings News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation declares 'victory' in Wikivoyage lawsuit In the media: Sue Gardner interviewed by the Australian press Featured content: Featured content gets schooled Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 25 February 2013 In the media: Ex-WMF trustee creates "Wikipedia Corporate Index" for PR agency Recent research: Wikipedia not so novel after all, except to UK university lecturers News and notes: "Very lucky" Picture of the Year Discussion report: Wikivoyage links; overcategorization Featured content: Blue birds be bouncin' WikiProject report: How to measure a WikiProject's workload Technology report: Wikidata development to be continued indefinitely Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC) WikiCup 2013 February newsletter Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below. Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were: Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs. Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points. Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition. Other contributors of note include: Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores. Sasata (submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year. Muboshgu (submissions) and Wizardman (submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition. Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic. Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles... March sees the to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome! A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk ) 01:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 04 March 2013 Op-ed: We must do more to turn readers into editors News and notes: Outing of editor causes firestorm Featured content: Slow week for featured content WikiProject report: WikiProject Television Stations Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 11 March 2013 From the editor: Signpost–Wikizine merger News and notes: Finance committee updates Featured content: Batman, three birds and a Mercedes Arbitration report: Doncram case closes; arbitrator resigns WikiProject report: Setting a precedent Technology report: Article Feedback reversal Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 18 March 2013 News and notes: Resigning arbitrator slams Committee WikiProject report: Making music Interview: Meeting in the middle: Wikipedia and libraries Featured content: Wikipedia stays warm Arbitration report: Richard case closes Technology report: Visual Editor "on schedule" Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 06:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 25 March 2013 WikiProject report: The 'Burgh: WikiProject Pittsburgh Featured content: One and a half soursops Arbitration report: Two open cases News and notes: Sue Gardner to leave WMF; German Wikipedians spearhead another effort to close Wikinews Technology report: The Visual Editor: Where are we now, and where are we headed? Recent research: "Ignore all rules" in deletions; anonymity and groupthink; how readers react when shown talk pages Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 01 April 2013 Special report: Who reads which Wikipedia? WikiProject report: Special: FAQs Featured content: What the ? News and notes: Grants given for Wikipedia Library, six others; April Fool's Day ructions Arbitration report: Three open cases Technology report: Wikidata phase 2 deployment timetable in doubt Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 08 April 2013 Wikizine: WMF scales back feature after outcry WikiProject report: Earthshattering WikiProject Earthquakes News and notes: French intelligence agents threaten Wikimedia volunteer Arbitration report: Subject experts needed for Argentine History Featured content: Wikipedia loves poetry Technology report: Testing week Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 15 April 2013 Op-ed: How do we fix RfA inactivity? WikiProject report: Unity in Diversity: South Africa News and notes: Another admin reform attempt flops Featured content: The featured process swings into high gear Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 22 April 2013 In the media: Wikipedia inaccurate, says Florence; New Wikipedia app for breaking news WikiProject report: WikiProject Editor Retention News and notes: Milan conference a mixed bag Featured content: Batfish in the Red Sea Arbitration report: Sexology case nears closure after stalling over topic ban Technology report: A flurry of deployments Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 29 April 2013 News and notes: Chapter furore over FDC knockbacks; First DC GLAM boot-camp In the media: Wikipedia's sexism; Yuri Gadyukin hoax Featured content: Wiki loves video games WikiProject report: Japanese WikiProject Baseball Traffic report: Most popular Wikipedia articles Arbitration report: Sexology closed; two open cases Recent research: Sentiment monitoring; UNESCO and systemic bias; and more Technology report: New notifications system deployed across Wikipedia Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 06 May 2013 News and notes: Candidates nominating for Foundation elections; Looking ahead to Wikimania 2014 Technology report: Foundation successful in bid for larger Google subsidy Featured content: WikiCup update: full speed ahead! In the media: New Wikipedia for Schools edition; Anders Behring Breivik's Wikipedia contributions WikiProject report: Earn $100 in cash... and a button! Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 13 May 2013 News and notes: WMF–community ruckus on Wikimedia mailing list WikiProject report: Knock Out: WikiProject Mixed Martial Arts Featured content: A mushroom, a motorway, a Munich gallery, and a map In the media: PR firm accused of editing Wikipedia for government clients; can Wikipedia predict the stock market? Arbitration report: Race and politics opened; three open cases Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 20 May 2013 Foundation elections: Trustee candidates speak about Board structure, China, gender, global south, endowment WikiProject report: Classical Greece and Rome News and notes: Spanish Wikipedia leaps past one million articles In the media: Qworty incident continues Featured content: Up in the air Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 27 May 2013 News and notes: First-ever community election for FDC positions In the media: Pagans complain about Qworty's anti-Pagan editing Foundation elections: Candidates talk about the Meta problem, the nation-based chapter model, world languages, and value for money WikiProject report: WikiProject Geographical Coordinates Featured content: Life of 2π Recent research: Motivations on the Persian Wikipedia; is science eight times more popular on the Spanish Wikipedia than the English Wikipedia? Technology report: Amsterdam hackathon: continuity, change, and stroopwafels Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Moving pages If you decide to rename pages, please at least fix links so that for example the media on Commons doesn't suddenly become inaccessible. Eg [4]. I'll fix that one for you now. Please check other moves you've done to take care of any similar problems, thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Um, in case you hadn't noticed, Infrogmation, this editor hasn't edited anything since last November, just FYI ;-) Montanabw(talk) 21:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 05 June 2013 From the editor: Signpost developments Featured content: A week of portraits Discussion report: Return of the Discussion report News and notes: "Cease and desist", World Trade Organization says to Wikivoyage; Could WikiLang be the next WMF project? In the media: China blocks secure version of Wikipedia WikiProject report: Operation Normandy Technology report: Developers accused of making Toolserver fight 'pointless' Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 12 June 2013 News and notes: How Wikimedia affiliates are spending $8.4 million; PRISM scandal Featured content: Mixing Bowl Interchange In the media: VisualEditor will "change world history" Op-ed: The tragedy of Wikipedia's commons Discussion report: VisualEditor, elections, bots, and more Traffic report: Who holds the throne? Arbitration report: Two cases suspended; proposed decision posted in Argentine History WikiProject report: Processing WikiProject Computing Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Churn_and_change/Archive_2&oldid=1168300305" Toggle limited content width