User talk:WBOSITG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4

2

5

[edit] Luigi 28 & DIREKTOR

Scusa se scrivo in italiano, ma mi spiego meglio. L'utente DIREKTOR per l'ennesima volta mi ha cancellato un contributo, alla voce Rijeka. Ieri me l'ha cancellato affermando che non c'erano delle fonti. Io ho messo le fonti. Oggi mi dice che vuole delle VERE fonti. Si tratta di un elenco di sindaci di Rijeka, prima e dopo il 1948. Io ho trovato almeno DUE link SERI per ogni nome che ho inserito. Se DIREKTOR vuole, posso trovargli almeno DUE fonti SERIE scritte, delle quali parecchie di fonte croata. Infine, DIREKTOR continua a dire che io sarei bannato, e quindi cancella tutto ciò che scrivo per questo motivo. Io a questo punto chiedo cortesemente il tuo intervento: non è possibile che io sia perseguitato da un pazzo!!!--Luigi 28 (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi WB, if this guy isn't User:PIO I'll write a 2-page letter of apology. However, this is probably not gonna happen, since PIO not only uses socks, but positively stinks at it. So whenever I see a poorly conceived sock ploy on Dalmatian artocles by a Venetian irredentist radical that can barely speak English (no offense to Italiano) according to a well visible pattern of grammar mistakes, *deep breath*, I'm immediately telling myself: "heee's baaaack!" ;)

As for you PIO, I'll just quote Alasdair:

"your first ever edit was to restore a fact tag that PIO had added [1], and on his way out of the door, PIO/Agazio was telling us, without being asked(!), that he had no connection with you. See User_talk:Agazio. And that Istrian exodus got protected to prevent PIO editing it from his IP, and that you were along within 24 hours of the PP expiring to add census data to it [2], which, strangely enough, had often been PIO's favourite topic [3]."

You'll have to think of something more original than simply using (what I assume is) your "real-world" name to create an account, Louie. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Devo nuovamente usare l'italiano per spiegarmi meglio: dal primo momento che ho iniziato a scrivere nella Wikipedia inglese, questo signor DIREKTOR ha cancellato OGNI MIO INTERVENTO. E' una cosa incredibile! Ho dovuto inserire una fonte (source) per OGNI SINGOLA PAROLA! Ed anche così non gli andava bene e ha cancellato i miei interventi!
Ho trovato delle fonti CROATE per quasi ogni nome dei vecchi sindaci (City Mayors) di Rijeka/Fiume, e NEMMENO QUELLE FONTI gli andavano bene!
Questo DIREKTOR ha avuto dei problemi con questo Pio. Benissimo. Ma cosa c'entro io? Voglio che un amministratore faccia tutte le analisi possibili e immaginabili, e se vuole può anche chiamarmi a casa, può vedermi in videoconferenza. Io sono questo qui[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. Quando si dimostrerà che io e questo PIO NON SIAMO LA STESSA PERSONA, io CHIEDO le SCUSE di DIREKTOR, che è completamente FOLLE!--Luigi 28 (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I quote: "if this guy isn't User:PIO I'll write a 2-page letter of apology".
I'm this one: [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]
Now, I want your 2-page letter of apology!!!--Luigi 28 (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Scusa, ma ho veramente bisogno del tuo aiuto: adesso nella mia talk-page c'è un altro oltre a questo DIREKTOR che continua a dire che io sono Pio o che sono un altro. RIPETO: fate TUTTI I CONTROLLI CHE VOLETE. Io so perfettamente chi sono e non tollero che qualche pazzo ignorante continui a dire che sono un altro o un altro ancora. Ma esistono le REGOLE in Wikipedia, o è tutto una giungla?--Luigi 28 (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Administrator: I need your help to stop DIREKTOR and Alasdair. They are fools (look my talk page, please; and I WANT A 2-PAGE LETTER OF APOLOGY FROM DIREKTOR)!!!--Luigi 28 (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I don't know...

I don't know what to do exactly for you... On the Italian language Wikipedia User:Pio and a relevant number of sock (all related to negationism and the like) have been banned from editing and - leaving apart the suspect of being "the same person" - there is certainly a plot to impose a POV on same articles. Since I'm a technician in real life and I'm not used to political matters, I usually limit myself to revert (or placing a POV tag) and protecting the encyclopedia. --M/ (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Den's ADCO

I reviewed his most recent contributions. After you review him, I believe we should continue with coaching at a slower pace. Malinaccier (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Rfa

Thanks, WBOSITG, for participating in my recent RfA, which recently passed with 81 support and 1 neutral !votes. I appreciate all the support and constructive criticism offered in my RfA and I thank you for taking the time to !vote in my nomination. I feel so honoured to be trusted by so many of you and please, if you have any advice, comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. I would also like to thank Acalamari, Rlevse and Nishkid64, for their nomination statements. Thank you again. AngelOfSadness talk 23:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good articles newsletter

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 8 - June 2008 May issue Project News There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 157 unreviewed articles. Out of 215 total nominations, 44 are on hold, 13 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Choctaw, One Night Stand (2007), Justin Tuck, Tristan Tzara, The Stake Out (Seinfeld episode), Impalement arts, Backlash (2007), Adelaide Rams, and Sam Cowan. The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11) The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 4 articles up for re-review. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details. GAN Reviewer of the Month Giggy (talk · contribs) (a.k.a. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk · contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May include: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) Eustress (talk · contribs) GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs) Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs) Also, with 19 nominations, Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) is the nominator of the month, followed by TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) with 8 nominations submitted. Member News There are now 216 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 6 new members that joined during the month of April: Jack Bethune (talk · contribs) Jordan Timothy James Busson (talk · contribs) Limetolime (talk · contribs) Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Fan (talk · contribs) Mm40 (talk · contribs) Redmarkviolinist (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! New GA Review Process - Review Subpages In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable. When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category. When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{GA nominee}} template on its talk page, and click on the link to start the review. When the reviewer clicks on that link, they will also see some instructions on how to start a review of a GAN. For new reviewers, there's also a link to the Good Article criteria, as well as to the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles page and the mentors list. Once an article is reviewed, the GA review page should be transcluded onto the main article talk page, by adding {{Talk:Article/GA#}} to the bottom of the talk page. This is to ensure maintain the transparency of the GA process, as well as to make editors of the article in question aware that the review is taking place. When an article is either passed or failed, there's really nothing different to do in the process, although reviewers are encouraged to utilize the {{ArticleHistory}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter. Did You Know... ... that there are slightly more than twice as many Good Articles (4,266) as there are Featured Articles? ... that Giggy has some really neat and useful tools to assist reviewers in conducting their reviews? ... that there are ten experienced reviewers listed on the GA mentors list that can offer assistance or a second opinion in reviewing articles? From the Editors A GA working party has initiated discussion on ways to improve the Good Article project and processes. The goal of the working party is to come up with suggestions for improvement based on recent issues and concerns raised in the past, primarily in the wake of the Great Green Dot Debate of May 2008. The discussion can be found here. Members of the working party include: Dank55 (talk · contribs), Derek.cashman (talk · contribs), EyeSerene (talk · contribs), Giggy (talk · contribs), Gwinva (talk · contribs), LaraLove (talk · contribs), Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs), and OhanaUnited (talk · contribs). Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor) Giggabot, Giggy (Distributor) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Impalement arts • Backlash (2007) • Fort Jackson (Virginia) • The Great American Bash (2007) • Pacers-Pistons brawl Reassessment: Madonna (entertainer) • Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 214 articles (50 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 12 June 2008 | edit

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 02:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks for your comments about things to improve, and for not getting caught up in the whole userbox-thing :). Ironholds 20:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, i'll do so :). I agree wholeheartedly with your username, btw; i was lucky enough to catch BP at their brixton shows last year. Ironholds 21:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't actually there for bloc party, the support act (biffy clyro) are an obsession of mine (7 shows in 5 months, including the Xfm 10'th anniversary gig and seeing them demo some of tracks inside the studio) but after seeing bloc party live i'll have to agree with the <all comment. Ironholds 21:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

They actually played brixton a few weeks later (although only 1 day) as a sold-out headlining show, which made me giggle. Absolutely fantastic live, i'd recommend any chance to go see them. Ironholds 21:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ffm

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Firefoxman 3. Is this supposed to be linked in? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good catch!

Here. Nice one! NawlinWiki (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of "Portal:Homeschooling"

The deletion of an article you created, Portal:Homeschooling, has been proposed for the following reason:

No significant content

You are welcome to improve the article to meet Wikipedia's quality standards and remove the deletion notice from the article. You may also remove the notice if you disagree with the deletion, though in such cases, further discussion may take place at Articles for deletion, and the article may still be deleted if there is a consensus to do so.

Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion that all articles must meet. Certain types of article must establish the notability of their subject by asserting its importance or significance. Additionally, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, content inappropriate for an encyclopedia, or content that would be more suited to somewhere else (such as a directory or social networking website) is not acceptable. See What Wikipedia is not for the relevant policy. You may wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thanks. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 21:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Portal:Homeschooling

Yeah, I just saw it was sitting around empty, and since it looked like no one was maintaining it, I decided we might as well delete it until someone can maintain it. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 21:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)