User talk:Unionhawk/Archives/2009/August
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Unionhawk. 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. |
GA Sweeps August update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process 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) 19:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
: 3 August 2009
- News and notes: WMF elections, strategy wiki, museum partnerships, and much more
- Wikipedia in the news: Dispute over Rorschach test images, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 06:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Photo request
Hi! Do you submit photographs for Wikipedia use? If so, would you mind photographing the headquarters of Comair (on Comair Boulevard) in Boone County, KY by the Cincinnati airport? Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I do not take and submit photos... Sorry. Try eleswhere (sent from my Verizon Wireless mobile phone)--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 20:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
: 10 August 2009
- Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
- News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 06:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
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. 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) 14:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
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. 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) 22:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
: 17 August 2009
- From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here?
- Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series
- News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Reports of Wikipedia's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests
The Redirect Question has been updated. Thanks for your interest, PSY7 (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
A Place With No Name
I was just recently involved in the debate for this article's deletion and noticed that you made the ultimate decision to merge the content. I would like to express my opinions about how the debate was carried. First of all, I was the creator of the article and was not notified of any changes, which i find preposterous, additionally, the nominator of the article took it upon himself to merge the content on his own. He spoke of consensus, yet there was no consensus reached to merge the content, or close the article. I would like to ask you kindly to re-evaluate the decision you made based on how the nominator handled the discussion. He used the fact that the content was merged as an excuse to get rid of the article, however, the content was only merged because he did it himself, without reaching consensus from others involved in the debate. Please do re-evaluate your decision, thank you very much. --JDelo93 (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not happy? See an admin. Admins have the power to override non-admin closures, and would be the ones consulted in the event of a deletion review. The way I read the discussion, the consensus was to redirect as all substantial content had been merged. You may also want to take a look at WP:OWN, as some of your comments lead me to believe that you thought you were in charge of all changes to the article.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 16:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Reconsidering your comment, I shall re-open the debate on my own.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 16:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Striking out of Historicist !vote
You noted that you struck out Historicist's !vote in the AFD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holsworthy Barracks terror plot. So long as he isn't ballot stuffing, how is the fact that he's been confirmed as a sockpuppeteer relate to that AFD? Andjam (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm... I guess it really doesn't have anything to do with it... Oh well... I'm only human... The circumstances would be entirely different if it was a proven Sock making the !vote, not the sockpuppeteer (unless they !voted on the same AfD).--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 15:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Cincinnatti
Sorry about the Cincinnatti.I didn't look carefully.RuneScape Adventure (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's K, I understand completely. I've done it before (probably)--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 02:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
August 22, 2009
Thank you for your post on my talk page. I do not feel that I own the pages that I edit and I have read the WP policies extensively. I do take issue with the fact that a single user does not consult with the community or prompt constructively as to what should be done to strengthen an article. The edits in question were to immediately delete entire chunks and articles without any constructive contribution.
I sincerely feel that both the individuals whose pages were deleted met the notability standards. One was a publicly elected official prior to her work with the National Hispanic Institute and the other was a senior adviser on two separate US mayoral administrations prior to his work. They both tour on speaking engagements throughout K-12 schools as well as colleges and universities in the US, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Argentina, and Spain. They are not the primary officers of the organization, but they do stand in their own right. I took time to research these individuals and post my gatherings and labeled them as stubs as I hoped others would contribute to strengthen not delete.
I must say that this whole experience has been discouraging as the NHI articles along with its related articles were my first big project on WP. Why begin something if its just gonna be deleted in the future? I do not mind changes and constructive collaboration, but this was not that at all.
What would you recommend I do to collect the needed info to revive these pages in their own right? Fr222 (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- You might want to check out all the notability-related guidelines. WP:BIO, and WP:GNG would apply the most in this case. Also, don't use phrases like "primary editor" or "did not consult me before nomination," as that's what set off the WP:OWN alarm in my head... If the article demonstrates notability, it'll survive an AfD or not be nominated.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 05:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Please take a minute to sign your name
I am really glad that you added the Article rescue squadron template to your user page. I don't think we have woked together before, but hopefully that changes.
Please take a minute to sign your name to our list of 270+ Article rescue squadron members:
You are welcome to leave some comments there too...
Good news, we are building our first newsletter and should sent out this weekend, keep an eye out for it! Ikip (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm... Ah. My sign up was broken... That explains it...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 05:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Runescape
Ok, now listen here:
First off, my refference:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/specials/rich_list/rich_list_2009/article6131979.ece
--
Now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_warcraft
"With more than 11.5 million monthly subscribers,[11] World of Warcraft is currently the world's most-subscribed MMORPG[8][12][13] and holds the Guinness World Record for the most popular MMORPG.[14] In April 2008, World of Warcraft was estimated to hold 62 percent of the massively multiplayer online game (MMOG) market.[15]"
So, World of Warcraft has 11.5 million active accounts. And that 11.5 million is 62% of the MMO market, which includes Runescape.
So, how can 11.5 million accounts be 62% of the market, and then 140 million active accounts fitting into less than 38% of that? Come on, use your brains you silly boy. It's not rocket science.
The source is clearly incorrect. You know it's incorrect, step back now before you make a total e-idiot out of yourself. Do you even know what MMO stands for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpdr (talk • contribs) 22:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- First off, cut the personal attacks. I'm going to bring this to the article talk page. One of these sources are wrong, and I have a theory on the figures of the both of them...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 22:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Subcribed" accounts, as in, accounts people PAY for. That number encompasses 100% of WoW's playerbase (because there's no free version). What % of Runescape players have Member accounts? --King Öomie 12:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
More Maths :-)
Once again, enough with the personal attacks. How many of those people also play RuneScape? Did you consider that market share could only include paying members? Obviously one of the two sources is wrong (or maybe not. Maybe they're only counting paying members). Pretty much, in order to play WoW, you have to be a subscriber (thus the highest subscribed MMORPG), but that's not the case with RuneScape. I'm going to do a little investigation, but, I have a feeling that 104m active-ish players is about right (± a couple million)--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 23:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's some more maths for you (Yes I took into account F2P players as well):
What your saying is that there are 140 Million active Non-paying and paying subscribers on Runescape, yes?
Runescape has 171 Servers as of August 25th 09. Each with a capacity of 2000 players a server.
171 x 2000 = 342000 players maxium playing the game.
Now to be active on the game, you must play regularly (Weekly?).
How are you proposing 140 Million people (Or half of the United States) manage to ration the 342000 places available to play? What? Do the other 139.7 million wait eagerly at their computers?
You didn't care about the reference, you ignored the first Mathmatical evidence so now i'm interested to see how you cope with your third "Accept you are wrong" statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpdr (talk • contribs) 00:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm saying that there are 104 active players. Based on the RSC cutoff, I would assume that Jagex's definition of active is plays once/six months.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 01:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Besides, based on the fact that the ref you are suggesting is a wealth ranking, it is safe to assume that that count does not include players that do not make Gower money.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 01:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
And the Maths? You've yet to comment on that.
Yeh, I mean lets take your 4.5 million paying subscribers you said Runescape had. Now times that by the median membership fee. 5 x 4500000 = £22.5M. Andrew is worth £99M. Hmm, where does the other £76.5m come from then? Non-Subscribers clicking on adverts is their biggest source of income. Want a reference from your main man Andrew for that? Here you go: [1]. --Dpdr (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, now how about a more reliable source? (ie, an interview with the current CEO)--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 01:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please be careful and don't go on edit war with others =) OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's why I didn't revert again...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 13:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Custon Edit Intro
Can somebody tell me how people like X! make their own custom edit intro on their talk page?--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 00:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is an Editnotice, and hopefully that link will answer your question. Chzz ► 00:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter (September 2009)
| The Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Content | |||||
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikip (talk • contribs) 07:06, 24 August 2009
Re:Warning
Sorry about that, it's just that I find the BLP issue quite difficult to put under control. Blake Gripling (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it's kind of what caused your last RfA to fail (along with incorrect CSD tagging)--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 13:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I admit. I dunno, I tried doing my job, but I just sucked at trying to be an admin here. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Discussion and poll on reviewer usergroup criteria
You may be interested in a discussion and poll I've started to decide the criteria that will be used for promoting users to the reviewer group at Wikipedia talk:Reviewers#New discussion and poll: reviewer criteria - please put your comments there. AndrewRT(Talk) 17:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
: 24 August 2009
- News and notes: $500,000 grant, Wikimania, Wikipedia Loves Art winners
- Wikipedia in the news: Health care coverage, 3 million articles, inkblots, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 07:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)