User talk:Enterprisey/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Enterprisey. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Hi, I still can't review. I see my name on the list though. In the meantime I've been looking over pending AFCs and advising authors. ThanksAdyoo3 (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah - it looks like your name was written as "adyoo3" instead of "Adyoo3". Just fixed that; you should be able to review now. APerson (talk!) 13:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your willingness to help out. I have not the first idea how to run the bot, so thank you! Let me know if you need any questions answered but hopefully it's self-explanatory.Fisherjs (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

{{done}} APerson (talk!) 01:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've been reviewing AFCs I took your advise and looked for articles that are obviously not notable. An observation. I notice one person keeps leaving comments rather than making a decision to decline articles. I've found over 30 such entries. I think the person has enough experience since they joined in 2012 to review well. Most time authors do not correct their articles, maybe they didn't receive the comment? It seems a waste of time having to come behind a reviewer, read the article, especially when the comment says to research the citations. Just want to make sure the AFC pending articles doesn't backlog. Here is an example..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Edward_Porembny#

Thank you. Adyoo3 (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Adyoo3, if reviewers don't want to make a definite decision about accepting or declining an article (for instance, if they're unsure about the decision, or someone with the right permissions is needed to create a page over a redirect or something), they will often leave a comment instead. I don't really see a problem with that; I've done it a few times myself. The comments left in this way are helpful to both the author of the draft as well as to future reviewers. The helper script has an option to notify drafts' authors when you're leaving a comment, and it looks like this option was used in the case you pointed to. TL;DR: no problem. APerson (talk!) 18:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I saw, late, that you've been doing a few trial runs on the bot vis-a-vis the featured content importer for the Signpost. Me and Dispenser did some work on this problem as well but we have trouble with the script when it comes to dealing with encoding. Still, the source code may be of use to you. Before checking your bots on a whim I wasn't aware you were actively working on this problem in parallel!

I spent several hours last week downloading and (mostly) setting up pywikibot. ResMar 04:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, can I please opt out of being spam noticed for every single DYK nom? I've just removed 3 kb of messages from your bot. I don't see the point it in in all honesty, everytime somebody noms with a name linked it pings people anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, as indicated on my bot's user page, it's exclusion compliant. So, all you have to do is edit the {{bots}} transclusion on your talkpage so that it reads {{bots|deny=Theo's Little Bot,APersonBot}} instead of {{bots|deny=Theo's Little Bot}}. APerson (talk!) 23:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal from AfC Participants[edit] I'm very sorry for having to do this, but I'm afraid you don't yet seem to have a good grasp of policy or the ability to communicate well with newcomers. AfC is a very important process for the English language Wikipedia, and I have received several complaints of confusing and inaccurate comments left on drafts by you. I really appreciate your contributions, but perhaps it is best for you to come back when you are more experienced and have gotten more of your own drafts through AfC as well. Again, I apologize, and please come back in the future, but you do not seem to have the necessary experience and grasp of Wikipedia policy at this time. Thank you for your understanding. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly why I am denied reviewing articles, how many complains did I get. I am aware of the policies. I have had interactions with authors that have been fruitful. I have left comments with out declining articles. I took the advice of peers about finding AFC pending articles that can be declined right away. I've approve good articles. I have worked hard on submitting my own articles. Am I suppose to comment on submissions before making a choice to accept or decline? If I can't review, is it okay for me to help authors by editing their articles and advising them? I've real world experience as a writer on a newspaper, about 1000 edits and nearly 6 months of edits, English is my first language. I've asked for someone to come behind me to aid in my decisions. Is it possible I get a mentor? Can I be on probation? Did I review too many articles a day. I admit I am excited to help with Wilipedia, perhaps too enthusiastic

Adyoo3 (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Adyoo3, it looks like you ran into one of the most important things to notice about Articles for Creation: when reviewers review drafts, they're shaping the very first experience many people have with Wikipedia. So, it's extremely important that reviewers are there to help new editors as much as possible, to encourage new editors to come back and contribute more to Wikipedia.

The theme of Winner 42's comments about your reviewing was communication. Winner 42 didn't feel like you were adequately communicating with the authors of drafts you reviewed. Unfortunately, I have to say that I agree; at press time, I count six queries from draft authors that you haven't responded to. It's pretty important to respond to requests for advice on how to improve drafts you decline.

To go back to those complaints about your reviews, I can spot one complaint on Winner 42's talk page about your reviewing. On the draft in question, you left a comment that sounds a bit confusing. I'm guessing that once Winner 42 saw what he or she considered a pattern of these sorts of comments, you got taken off the review list.

Winner 42 said to come back when you are more experienced and have gotten more of your own drafts through AfC as well. I agree that getting some more drafts through the process shows that you have knowledge of the process and can be trusted to review some more drafts. Regarding mentorship, I'm of the opinion that you should probably get more experience with the process through ways other than reviewing (e.g. helping new authors with their articles or, as I said before, getting more articles through the process). No hard feelings at all! APerson (talk!) 19:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I did answer the queries on the authors talk pages. Would it be okay if I help with AFC pending articles and ask you for advice? Thank you.Adyoo3 (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal from AfC Participants[edit] I'm very sorry for having to do this, but I'm afraid you don't yet seem to have a good grasp of policy or the ability to communicate well with newcomers. AfC is a very important process for the English language Wikipedia, and I have received several complaints of confusing and inaccurate comments left on drafts by you. I really appreciate your contributions, but perhaps it is best for you to come back when you are more experienced and have gotten more of your own drafts through AfC as well. Again, I apologize, and please come back in the future, but you do not seem to have the necessary experience and grasp of Wikipedia policy at this time. Thank you for your understanding. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly why I am denied reviewing articles, how many complains did I get. I am aware of the policies. I have had interactions with authors that have been fruitful. I have left comments with out declining articles. I took the advice of peers about finding AFC pending articles that can be declined right away. I've approve good articles. I have worked hard on submitting my own articles. Am I suppose to comment on submissions before making a choice to accept or decline? If I can't review, is it okay for me to help authors by editing their articles and advising them? I've real world experience as a writer on a newspaper, about 1000 edits and nearly 6 months of edits, English is my first language. I've asked for someone to come behind me to aid in my decisions. Is it possible I get a mentor? Can I be on probation? Did I review too many articles a day. I admit I am excited to help with Wilipedia, perhaps too enthusiastic

Adyoo3 (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Adyoo3, it looks like you ran into one of the most important things to notice about Articles for Creation: when reviewers review drafts, they're shaping the very first experience many people have with Wikipedia. So, it's extremely important that reviewers are there to help new editors as much as possible, to encourage new editors to come back and contribute more to Wikipedia.

The theme of Winner 42's comments about your reviewing was communication. Winner 42 didn't feel like you were adequately communicating with the authors of drafts you reviewed. Unfortunately, I have to say that I agree; at press time, I count six queries from draft authors that you haven't responded to. It's pretty important to respond to requests for advice on how to improve drafts you decline.

To go back to those complaints about your reviews, I can spot one complaint on Winner 42's talk page about your reviewing. On the draft in question, you left a comment that sounds a bit confusing. I'm guessing that once Winner 42 saw what he or she considered a pattern of these sorts of comments, you got taken off the review list.

Winner 42 said to come back when you are more experienced and have gotten more of your own drafts through AfC as well. I agree that getting some more drafts through the process shows that you have knowledge of the process and can be trusted to review some more drafts. Regarding mentorship, I'm of the opinion that you should probably get more experience with the process through ways other than reviewing (e.g. helping new authors with their articles or, as I said before, getting more articles through the process). No hard feelings at all! APerson (talk!) 19:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I did answer the queries on the authors talk pages. Would it be okay if I help with AFC pending articles and ask you for advice? Thank you.Adyoo3 (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I have made some changes to reduce the visual impact of the relist template on AfD pages and AfD log pages. The plan is to use a boxed format, to avoid the lines going all the way across the page as the previous version did and to encapsulate it on the page, again, avoiding the layout with lines. I would really like to try it out for awhile with this format, so reverting the recent change that added back the lines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Cool, no problem if you'd like to try it out for some time. Personally, I prefer the air version without side borders because it resembles some <hr>'s around the text, but again, I agree with reducing the visual impact of the template. APerson (talk!) 18:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is occurring at Template talk:Relist#New layout that involves changes to the template. (It was reverted to a previous version other than the one I created and the one that you created). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification! APerson (talk!) 18:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian states. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

 Already a consensus there APerson (talk!) 01:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:H:IPA. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not technical APerson (talk!) 01:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey APerson, I wanted to ask about the status of your FC importer script. In particular I wanted to know if this is still something you are working on, or something you have currently on the backburner, or something that you're no longer interested in (no shame in it—really). I ask because I feel that it's a pretty important piece of tech (cuts down on perhaps 30 mins/week of manual labor) that I want to keep track of the progress on. ResMar 05:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Resident Mario, I haven't been working on it recently, as I've been a bit busy IRL and with other projects on here. When I looked at the code you and Dispenser had written, it looked like you guys are farther along than I was. This is the result of one of the final tests I did with the code; notice that it doesn't prefill the names of the people who worked on the content. If a result like that is fine with you, the code's still available on GitHub. APerson (talk!) 01:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, good to know. Our code itself needs a summary rewrite, unfortunately—it's not stable. The errors involved involve character encoding and aren't something I have the technical knowledge to get around, frustrating. Agreed—too many projects and not enough time. ResMar 02:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Any chance you've had a chance to look at Jogersbot? Fisherjs (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Fisherjs, so I've been working a bit on the templates and things (as seen here), but the first task involves checking the content of a hundred thousand pages or so. I'm quite busy IRL, but what I'm working on right now is very short-term and I actually hope to be working on the bot more intensely before the end of the week. I'm sorry this got delayed a bit. APerson (talk!) 01:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Understood. Keep us posted! And thanks again. --Fisherjs (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikidata. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

{{done}} APerson (talk!) 17:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Bot requests. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. I will !vote in proper way now :-) Best regards, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 13:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks again for your contributions to AfD! APerson (talk!) 17:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi APerson,

I had submitted a topic page for Ashta Vadivu, the eight fundamental positions in Kalaripayattu, the ancient martial arts form of India. It has been rejected. Can you please help me improve the areas so that the context is more robust and worthy to be published?

Thank you Aymym — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aymym (talk • contribs) 15:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Aymym, sure! I declined the submission because of notability; that is to say, I couldn't find enough sources talking about it. The article cites two sources, but neither provide significant coverage (see also this footnote). Both books seem to discuss the martial art in general, not the eight fundamental positions in specific. Note that I may be wrong here: the books may indeed be good sources, but I can't check that since neither are available online. (Wikipedia's "verifiability" policy says [r]eaders must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up.)

So, all you have to is find more sources that discuss this in depth. If there aren't any, maybe it's possible that these positions don't really need their own article and that they could simply be described (at length, even) in the main article. APerson (talk!) 19:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi APerson,

I understand the grey area of proving authoritativeness of any reference cited. And I do understand the articles need to be substantial for any publication.

Let me take a step back and describe what a Vadivu is. As a student of Kalaripayattu, I know the importance that is placed on these Vadivus. Hence whatever I am writing is not heresy but something I have learnt through experienced teachers. These eight techniques are the foundation stones of the ancient martial art. Though they sound simple when each of them is defined, i.e. a Lion stance is an imitating movement to gather strength and concentration, these very movements become the cornerstone of advanced learning in Kalaripayattu. Hence I thought of creating a separate page instead of trying to include it the main Kalaripayattu page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalaripayattu . Also, if you will notice the page is more an overall description of the martial art, and bringing in the nitty gritty details of basic movements would not be recommended.

Next is my choice of books. The Phillip Zarrilli one is a in-depth book on Kalaripayattu where he describes the eight movements as an integral part of the martial art. The second book from which the images have been released for publishing in Wikipedia, is a pictorial one which actually illustrates the movements. But then, Vadivus are a section of that book too, and not the entirety. The author has emailed to Wikipedia releasing the pictures of the very book to be published here with the article. Wouldn't that sufficient enough to be authoritative and good for a publication?

Aymym (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You just asked whether the books you're using are authoritative enough. My answer is yes, even though whether they're authoritative doesn't matter when deciding whether the topic of Vadivus gets an article here. What matters is whether there are secondary sources that cover the topic in some detail. For example, if there were a bunch of newspaper articles that talked about these techniques, then that would count as "significant coverage in reliable sources. At the moment, neither source used in the article is a secondary source, as both authors are connected to the topic. I hope this clears it up a bit! APerson (talk!) 18:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, APerson, for your patience and time in explaining about the secondary sources. Since the Vadivus are usually not subject of newspaper articles or similar secondary reference sources, I should rest aside my attempt to create a page for the same. As I mentioned earlier, print media or otherwise do not carry these details about the martial art since their larger audience will not fnd any use for it. It was nice talking to you. :)

Aymym (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Pthealth wikimaker (talk · contribs)
  • User:Pthealth wikimaker/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, just wanted to request for a re-review of the page I was making. I have added a good number of both content and citations in the hope to make it a more comprehensive and verifiable page.

Pthealth wikimaker (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Pthealth wikimaker, so you've definitely done a lot of research since I last reviewed the page - nice work! In the comment I left when I reviewed, I noted that you needed more sources that provided significant coverage of the topic. What I meant was that sources have to be about the community clinic network or devote a significant amount of attention to it. This means that sources that are only about some health technique used by the network don't provide this sort of coverage. So, for instance, a newspaper article about the network would be a great source to add to the article, but a scientific paper about something the clinic does (unless it discusses the network in some detail) wouldn't be. TL;DR I can't accept it because the sources don't specifically talk about the network. APerson (talk!) 12:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks so much for your direction. I have asked help from our local clinics with the citations so we can improve our page. I will let you know when we are ready for another review. Again, thank you!

Pthealth wikimaker (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Pthealth wikimaker

No problem, and thanks for your contributions! APerson (talk!) 18:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, since I was blocked from editing, due to lack of experience. I think you should help these people who wrote to me about their AFC pending. Here are the articles...

> Draft:The Naked Convos[edit] Hi, someone asked questions at the teahouse about this draft and so I was looking at its sources. You rejected it for lack of notability and independant sources. However, it has recieved or been nominated for some impressive awards, and these are backed up by sources independant of the topic. Also, while the draft uses lots of non-independant sources (which I agree is not great), there are some good independant review etc. type sources from newspapers in there. Can you let me know more details so I can properly help the author? Thanks! Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

> Draft:Nadeem_Bhabha[edit] Hello, Please take a look at the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nadeem_Bhabha and let me know if it is better to submit. I appreciate your help. thanks Nadeembahoo 3:17 am, June 8, 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC) 22:41:00, 8 June 2015 review of submission by Mrbusiness95[edit] Mrbusiness95 (talk · contribs)

> Draft:Carl James (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I wanted to get in contact with you to get some input on how I should go about fixing up the page for "Carl James" in terms of finding more reliable sources. I realize now that the Wiki reference to "Living Colour" can not be used, I thought it would be useful since the link was right there and his name was being referenced. So at your earliest convenience can you please get back to me for further instructions. Thanks in advance. Mrbusiness95 (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Mrbusiness95 (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC

Thank you.Adyoo3 (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox person. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear APerson, I tried to fix the things you showed me. Would you please take a look at it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hungarian_Residency_Bond_Program) to see it it is alright now? You know this is my first wikipedia article and I want to do it as it must be. Thank you very much and kind regards, Tucanus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tucanus (talk • contribs) 13:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Tucanus, I looked at the new version of the draft, and you've definitely improved the article! However, I think it still needs some work before it can get approved. The decline reason I put on the draft six months ago explains that [t]his submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. In particular, I was referring to the part that says Wikipedia isn't a place to publish original research you've conducted. While this may apply to your article, I think a better explanation for why your article needs some work is the related policy section WP:NOTHOW. Most of your article talks about how the residence permit can be obtained, not general encyclopedic information about the permit program. By contrast, Wikipedia articles should ideally contain more general encyclopedic information, as opposed to specific instructions. I hope this helps, and if you have any more questions, feel free to ask! APerson (talk!) 01:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox country. Legobot (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Just curious because I have this AFD watchlisted. You indicated "!voted for deletion" in your edit summary but did the opposite on the AFD itself. I am not sure which you mean. Pls. clarify. Yours, Quis separabit? 20:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com, sorry if my edit summary caused any confusion. I left a note there clarifying that as I said in the discussion, I wanted to recommend that the article be kept. Maybe I should switch to "!voted" as the summary I use. APerson (talk!) 19:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear APerson, I have already fixed the things that you show me. I added some references that appear with a large number of scholarly citation. I hope the new version of the Magging should be suitable for wikipedia. Best regards User:xiefushuai — Preceding undated comment added 01:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Xiefushuai, from what I could determine, exactly one of the sources in the article even mentions the word "magging". Without sources that talk about the topic (like a newspaper article), magging shouldn't get an article. APerson (talk!) 19:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, :APerson, actually, there is an academic paper talk about the magging. You can see it in the 5th reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiefushuai (talk • contribs) 00:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

 Already deleted APerson (talk!) 03:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox television. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Red link. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if this is the wrong place to bring this up, but I have a question about the afdstats tool. I don't think it is counting the "snow keep" votes. "Snow keep" is basically "speedy keep" by saying it has a snowball's chance of being deleted. Can you look into this? Thanks for this great tool! —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikimandia, I had no part in developing the tool and I'm just here for maintenance, but sure, I'll look into it. It should be pretty simple to add another synonym for "speedy keep". APerson (talk!) 18:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much! —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I am trying out delsort.js. I have used it on the 28 DELSORT categories listed but not on the other ~250 categories supported by WP:DELSORT project. Overall impression: It works well, it is user friendly and it avoids some of obvious pitfalls of FWDS. However, if you are an expert user who knows exactly what you're doing, FWDS may be crude, but it's faster. I'm running the two scripts concurrently for now. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• P.S. I'm learning how to use the "Add custom" function. I can only get it to work if I include one of the 28 listed categories though. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Gene93k, it should work on any category whatsoever, so that's probably a bug. I'll try fixing that. APerson (talk!) 22:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. APerson (talk!) 22:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Further feedback. I have been using the new script for all my deletion sorting over the base couple of days. Everything appears to work and it can do everything FWDS can do. I take back my previous comment about FWDS being faster. The user interface including the "Add custom" function is powerful once you figure it out. It just needs clearer documentation. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Gene93k, thank you very much for your feedback! I'll work on putting documentation up at User:APerson/delsort. Happy delsorting! APerson (talk!) 21:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget to press preview. ;-) Alakzi (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

APerson (talk!) 00:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Sexual harassment. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

My account age shows up as NaN when using your admin score tool. I'm not thinking about becoming one myself, but perhaps others are running into the same issue. shoy (reactions) 13:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Shoy, that's pretty weird. I can tell that it's not an issue with my tool (probably, at least). I make a specific API call to figure out when a user registered; note that in your case, it contains the text "registration: null". By contrast, the equivalent call with my username has a timestamp in the registration field. I'll look into why this was the case; it could be that your account came into existence through unconventional means, or that this is just a bug in MediaWiki itself. Anyway, thanks for bring this to my attention! APerson (talk!) 22:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. My log [1] shows an account creation date (Sept. 2005), but this username was usurped in 2007. Maybe that's the problem? shoy (reactions) 12:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Shoy, yeah, that could be the problem. On the other hand, I usurped the username "APerson" myself a couple of years back, and as demonstrated, the tool doesn't have any issues with me. It could be something weird with how the usurpation happened. There are a few other logs I haven't checked yet, so I can go do that. In the meantime, are you aware of any other users that are facing the same problem? APerson (talk!) 17:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of. shoy (reactions) 17:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Digging into this, this is apparently a known issue for old accounts, see [2]. Thanks for making me feel old, WP. shoy (reactions) 14:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Whoa, didn't think to check there. Thanks for reassuring me that this is a bug on WP's end. If there are any more people with this same issue, I wonder if we can get the shell group to run that PHP script (fixUserRegistration.php) mentioned there. APerson (talk!) 17:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Templates

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Templates for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (chew) @ 09:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi APerson,

My last submission was declined due to not fulfilling the notability criterion. In your comment you mentioned that if there was a book written on the play it would be sufficient. In the reference section, number 3 - Frank Felstenstein's book is entirely about the play, its various treatments, historical significance etc. It just doesn't have "Yarico" in the title. Also, the play is mentioned quite extensively in Jenna Gibbs book listed in my reference section. Is that sufficient?

Many thanks Korzenaqlag (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Korzenaqlag, sorry - while checking the sources, I failed to notice from the JSTOR review I read that the book was actually talking about the play itself. I'll go accept it. APerson (talk!) 03:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Interstellar probe. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Good morning.

Could You help me with run/create bot on my own mediawiki?--TraaBBIT (talk) 10:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

TraaBBIT, sure. Have you looked at mw:Manual:Creating a bot? APerson (talk!) 01:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. I saw that User:APersonBot is replacing (or whatever!) Teahouse invitation templates. Some of these templates use my (old) username, User:SarahStierch. Because of this, each time it replaces a template, it gets added to my watchlist. Is there a way that it can avoid doing that? Thanks for your consideration! Missvain (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure! I'll just put in a rule that if the bot sees "SarahStierch", it'll skip it so I can manually use your new username instead. APerson (talk!) 20:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Geology of Pluto. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. If you are considering becoming an admin, there are two pages that will certaintaily help you make your decision: Essential reading is WP:Advice for RfA candidates, and all its links and footnotes; while user:Kudpung/RfA criteria also contains insight on what RfA participants base their votes. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Olympic Games. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox building. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Since I've been banned from review, please help this writer instead. Thanks.

19:10:49, 2 August 2015 review of submission by Balzgana[edit] Balzgana (talk · contribs) Draft:Paul Friedlander (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Balzgana (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

My reviewer declined my submission stating that it Need sources talking about the subject not just links to art galleries. However I do not agree with this as I tried to reference my sources correctly and if you look at the references list the first words are the actual in bedded links to where they talk about Paul Friedlander and the second one is the original source of websites. For example - [1]

Please reconsider as I've seen pages with less references or otherwise could I be given advice on what to do so this page could go 'live'? Would it be necessary to remove the information that cannot be referenced?

Many thanks

Jump up ^ Molina, Angela (17 May 2006). Timeless Universe Press Release ""Timeless Universe". Paul Friedlander". http://www.salaparpallo.com/. Retrieved 19 April 2015.

Adyoo3 (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I have edited the wikipediholic test (there are now 147 questions) so you need to update the automateed version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kernosky (talk • contribs) 10:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Kernosky, thanks for contributing to the test! The automated test loads itself from the onwiki page every time someone opens it, so updating it isn't necessary. APerson (talk!) 20:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC) (updated 20:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC))

Oh yeah - when you added a question, you removed a parentheses from the previous one, which meant that the automated version didn't detect it anymore. I just fixed it. APerson (talk!) 20:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi APerson you offered to help with my submission (Coyote1force) and editing of the OKlahoma Sheriffs & Peace Officers Association. I made a few changes in the sandbox area and added some validation & notability links....I hope that is what is needed. If not please let me know. I reviewed the OKlahoma Sheriffs Association, which a branch off of OSPOA info in Wikipedia and I'm still lost. But I would be happy if you reviewed ...delete what won't work and keep what will. You know best what will work. I appreciate your help...I'm just lost on all this. Coyote1force (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Coyote1force, the reason I declined your submission is on the draft: This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. You've definitely added citations, and that's important for verifying the facts in the article. However, the presence of citations wasn't the issue; rather, it was whether the citations established notability. Essentially, newspapers (and other reliable sources) have to be specifically writing about the organization for it to get an article. It isn't enough for the OSPOA to be mentioned in passing in an article; in other words, the news coverage has to be significant.

Briefly, all you need to do is add sources that talk about the OSPOA in depth and the article will get created. APerson (talk!) 18:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I will search for some. Can I attached past articles that are not on the worldwideweb? because they where established in 1914 I believe there are lots of older articles. If so how would I go about doing that?

Coyote1force (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Oops - if I led you to believe that only online sources are allowed, I apologize. You can use any reliable sources, online or offline. (Although if you can track down a link to them online, it makes facts much easier to verify.) There's a template called {{cite news}} that you can generally use for offline newspapers as well as online ones. APerson (talk!) 19:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirect. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Please check Don Vicente Rama Memorial National High School once more. There was an unsuccessful attempt to replace the template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Signac. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

—Elitre (WMF), 22:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:You've got mail. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi APerson. I try to figure out why there is no response on this recommendation (it has been archived). I am placing my template inside your sandbox page. Please see how it works, helping a user organize his sanboxed articles, by creating one or two sandboxes of your own with it, and how the template behaves to let create an article from a sandboxed one. See how sandboxes are organized in your main sandbox. Sorry for being a bit bold with your sandbox page. I do not know if there is a conflict with practices followed here and I hope you can enlighten me. Thank you.·· ManosHacker 19:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

ManosHacker, just took a look at it and it looks really good. A note on the technical implementation: {{Move sandbox to article}}, {{Sandbox subpages}}, and {{Create sandbox subpage}}, as "sub-templates" of the main one, could probably be moved under the main template instead of hanging out in template space as separate templates.

Regarding getting people to look at it, it's weird that more people didn't weigh in at the technical village pump. It might be on-topic at WP:VPPR instead of the technical one, though. Generally, good luck with your template! APerson (talk!) 00:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks APerson. I will try to merge all templates in one. I think my difficulty was to overcome the {| (table start) inside the if statements and I used subtemplates to solve it. Since you liked this template of mine, I have also one more to show you and you might help on this, also. Have a look here and give your opinion. It's been tested extensively and works like a charm. Have a nice day.·· ManosHacker 08:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I just came across this edit by APersonBot replacing "{{sign}}" with the contents of the {{sign}} template, without recognising that the "sign" in question was a parameter, not an instance of the template (it had three tildes instead of two). I wonder if this was intentional and whether or not the bot might have made similar edits to other pages with a {{{sign}}} parameter? In the meantime I've undone the edit. (PS. please mention my username in your comment or leave a note on my talk page if you reply) ~ benzband (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Benzband, I evidently forgot to exclude the templates which I was subst:'ing while I was subst:'ing them. I'll check as many bot edits as I can, but I'll be able to do more in front of a non-mobile device.

I'm pretty sure that subst:'ing the sign template was AWB's fault, but I'll definitely look into that. Thanks for alerting me! APerson (talk!) 01:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi APerson, welcome back. Would you have a look on this please? Do you find it handy? Is there a protocol to follow to get it enabled? (discussion has been archived and from my point of view there is consensus for this). Thank you.·· ManosHacker 13:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Flail Space Model at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 19:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Navbox. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I've noticed you're interested in running for adminship and have been asking around for a nominator. I suggest you thoroughly read WP:Advice for RfA candidates and checked that you generally meet my criteria. If you can get through that lot and still believe you will pass RfA, chances are 99,9% that you will. Then ask me to nominate. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Flail Space Model Comment by author: Since the first official vehicle crash tests of roadside guardrails in 1962, there has been no requirement or need for using instrumented anthropoometric dummies. The first criteria for safety consideration of hypothetical occupants was based on vehicle accelerations measured during a crash test. Later, the criteria for assessing breakaway supports such as luminaire or sign supports was based on momentum or velocity change of the vehicle. In the early 1970s, crash cushions such as sand drums used the average vehicle deceleration base on stopping distance. So, there were three different criteria but none based on the use of instrumented dummmies. The FSM combined the three criteria into a single model. The author is well acquainted with instrumented dummys and their use based on his research experience in evaluating air bags in subcompact vehicles for NHTSA in the early 1970; both sled tests and vehicle crash tests were used in these federally funded research programs at the Southwes Research Institute. Although the FSM does not use dummmies, the research used by the author in developing the FSM made use of the kinematics of Part 572 and Side Impact Dummy in varifying the premise of the FSM.

Anthropometric dummies are certainly suitable in evalluating restraint systems in vehicles undergoing head on collisions, with the events lasting less than 0.5 seconds. My experience with air bags, suggest that the bags begin deploying at about 20 to 35 msec from onset of the crash, are fully deployed shortly after 50 msec and then begin collapsing after 250 msec (1/4 sec). After about 0.5 sec, the airbag is collapsed and offers so protection to the occupant. Since, vehicle collisions with roadside features are prolonged events, extending well beyond the 250 msec range of the frontal air bags, air bags offer little if no protection for the occupant.Jarvis4340 (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC) `

Hello there! I noticed your name on m:VisualEditor/Newsletter. I'm just making sure you're aware of what follows, but you're also free to disregard this message entirely :)

• en.wiki gets the newsletter earlier, because that's not translated into other languages. If you want to receive the newsletter on the English Wikipedia, please suscribe to Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Newsletter instead;
• if you want to get the newsletter in a language which is not English (assuming a translation has been provided for that month), then please update your Meta subscription to your talk page on the wiki in that language.

That's all! Thanks a lot for your interest in VisualEditor, and please don't hesitate in requesting my support if you need me to do anything on your behalf. HTH, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
2. Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
3. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
4. Harrias (submissions), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
5. West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
6. Rodw (submissions), from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
7. Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
8. Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). Legobot (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I am blocked from reviewing articles of creation. Can you help this person whose article I reviewed once before I was blocked. I think someone else rejected his article. Thank you Adyoo3 (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

19:10:49, 2 August 2015 review of submission by Balzgana[edit] Balzgana (talk · contribs) Draft:Paul Friedlander (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Balzgana (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

My reviewer declined my submission stating that it Need sources talking about the subject not just links to art galleries. However I do not agree with this as I tried to reference my sources correctly and if you look at the references list the first words are the actual in bedded links to where they talk about Paul Friedlander and the second one is the original source of websites. For example - [1]

Please reconsider as I've seen pages with less references or otherwise could I be given advice on what to do so this page could go 'live'? Would it be necessary to remove the information that cannot be referenced?

Many thanks

Jump up ^ Molina, Angela (17 May 2006). Timeless Universe Press Release ""Timeless Universe". Paul Friedlander". http://www.salaparpallo.com/. Retrieved 19 April 2015.

On 7 September 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Flail space model, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the flail space model models how a passenger will move in a collision with a roadside feature like a guardrail, since crash test dummies are not accurate in such cases? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Flail Space Model. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Legobot (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Cite doi. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my questioning has caused you to reveal a bit more than you intended to, and that in my oppose statements (which have been vigorously challenged) that I have been repeatedly referring to your behaviour as deceptive. It is the nature of a RfA that one has to give a rationale for opposing, and to explain it when questioned. I want you to know that I completely understand your position, and don't think that you did anything bad. The reason I am opposing is that I feel admins should be seen to be open, honest and trustworthy. Because what you have done is fairly minor and understandable, you will continue to get support from some sections of the community. Going through a RfA is tough when people start opposing, but please don't take any of it as personal - it is your account and the use of the tools we are talking about, not you as a person. You have strong and continuing support so you are likely to be given the tools. But whatever happens, there's no need to think that I or anyone else is thinking the worse of you. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Refimprove. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

{{done}} APerson (talk!) 13:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi APerson – I recently voted in support of you and I have heard that you became active AfC user which is important part of my field, that I need admin support which I lack in these areas and administrators didn't take actions because we don't have enough of them. A candidate like yourself would be a perfect role to play as an administrator in this field. I hope and wish you for a successful journey throughout RfA process. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 21:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:California wildfires. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I regret to inform you that your request for adminship has been closed as unsuccessful. The RfA process can be grueling sometimes, and we appreciate your patience throughout the process. I encourage you to review the comments made during the RfA and see if there is anything which should be addressed to give you a better chance during a future RfA (and yes, I encourage you to run again at some point in the future). If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thank you again for your time, and good luck in the future. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, very very sorry that went the way it did, I'm stunned that anyone could oppose over someone !voting in an RFA from an alternate account. ϢereSpielChequers 21:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Pirate Bay. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, AP. In the aftermath of your RfA, I wanted to stop by your page and thank you for all you do around here. You're a good editor and a positive contributor, and that somehow often gets lost in the mix with some folks focusing only on the negative, the trivial or the unusual in RfA discussions. Please stay positive about the project; much good work is done here, and your contributions are part of that. And, yes, I was sincere when I said I look forward to supporting your next RfA candidacy. So, buck up, and get back to making positive contributions. Please. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Seconding this. I look forward to your future work here and a future RfA when you feel ready. You know how to contact me if you want to talk. — Earwig ^talk 21:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thirding. While I stayed Neutral, I have no doubt at all that you are positive contributor to this project, and hope you'll continue to be. In fact, I suspect it'll be even easier for you to do that as an editor, rather than having to put up with the drama of being an Admin. So I hope the RfA result doesn't get you down. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Fourthing... It's been a long time since I've !voted in an RfA, but I felt strongly that yours should succeed. Thanks for all your contributions, and I look forward to seeing you around in future! Cheers, Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 00:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for your messages! I really appreciate it, and I'm definitely looking forward to doing more productive work here. APerson (talk!) 03:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

(barnstar moved to user space)

Thanks, Rubbish computer! APerson (talk!) 20:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I've developed a ruleset that cleans up multiple AfC categories from talk pages, meaning pages with multiple declines don't need several passes. Do you want me to send it to you? It also cleans up teahouse invites that say "Hello! Teahouse,".

Rankersbo (talk) 08:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Rankersbo, sure, thanks! (I haven't been running the task lately because of IRL commitments, by the way.) APerson (talk!) 16:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... not sure how to get this to you now. I've uploaded the text of the settings file here, if you can't make use of it, I'll try and get the actual file to you.

Oops first version had a bug, it's OK now. The RL stuff is understandable :) Rankersbo (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar declined.

Olowe2011, I appreciate the barnstar! However, I have to decline it, as barnstars are meant only for exceptional work and great edits. APerson (talk!) 00:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi APerson. Your thoughts are welcome at WT:RFA#Two proposed RfCs on the viewdeleted userright. (P.S. This isn't canvassing, since you're one of the people in the target demographic ... you'll see what I mean.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• 178.16.163.28 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Radoslav Pavlovic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for reviewing my submission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Radoslav_Pavlovic

I am a bit surprised by your decision because, in the list of reliable sources Wikiepdia mentions: Books published by respected publishing houses Mainstream newspapers

In support of this article I gave reference to books published by a respected publishing house - with ISBN they can be viewed on Amazon for instance. I also gave a reference from a very mainstream and high-volume newspapaer from which biographical details are taken. I also made reference to the Official Journal of the Republic of Serbia ("Sluzbeni Glasnik") in which the nomination of Pavlovic to his function has been published. Pavlovic is quoted as author of major works in Serbian culture which already have a properly-sourced wikipedia page: Hajde_da_se_volimo_(film_series).

If we take an existing author about a person of equivalent profession, and similar presence in media , such as Dušan Kovačević - his article (although longer), has much less reliable references, and yet is fully accepted.

I also made an article about Pavlovic in Serbian wikipedia [3].

I would like to kindly ask you to either (1) reconsider your decision or (2) point out the exact differences in terms of the amount/nature of reliable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.16.163.28 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure. The only issue with your draft right now is sources. Four out of the six sources are from IMDb, which generally shouldn't be used as a reliable source. Out of the other two, which I reviewed using Google Translate, one is an official announcement and one is an interview. As a source, the interview, as you said, is from a "very mainstream" source. If you found more interviews like that, in sources that were just as mainstream, then I'd definitely accept the draft. Regarding the article on Dušan Kovačević, even though I don't think the sources there are that solid, we have to judge every topic on its own when deciding whether it gets an article. APerson (talk!) 14:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I reverted your removal of the image links from the three AFC templates. The images used are all licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0, which require that attribution be given. Unless I am misunderstanding our licensing policy, we would have to either credit Mono directly in the template or keep a link from the image to the File: page. Generally, the only images I've seen used in templates without a link are those that are public domain or CC-0 licensed. If there's something I'm missing here, feel free to re-revert me. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Vandalism/RfC for a trial unbundling of blocking. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

—Elitre (WMF), 18:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Happy (belated) Halloween! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Mrkacrawford (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:E-teaching (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requesting assistance in understanding page submission procedures Thank you for your review of the Wikipedia submission, E-teaching. I understand that it was rejected because of a similarity with another topic--Technology Integration As I am new to content creation on Wikipedia, I was wondering if you could answer a few questions:

1.) When does a subject become so broad that new pages related to the existing page are allowed to be created? e.g. -> Hockey and Highsticking 2.) How does an editor decide whether there is enough interest on a topic (that is related to an existing topic) to justify the creation of a new page? Is there research put into how many users have searched these terms? 3.) When someone wants to add a page and they see that the topic has been deleted due to copyright issues or self-promotion? Does this not indicate to the editor that there may be a demand for this page? 4.) How does the first submission editor miss something as big as an already existing topic the first time around? This process seems a little messy to a first time user. (The first submission was much shorter as well)

With all due respect, I think it's apparent from reading my questions that I disagree with your rejection. Technology Integration is an excellent topic and I'm glad it exists. However, as a researcher and educator, I think more focus needs to be put on the pedagogical practices that incorporate technology integration i.e., e-Teaching. For example teaching and learning are two very different processes that and are deserved of separate pages discussing their nuances and connections to each other. The same can be said with e-Leanring and e-Teaching. As a researcher and educator, It's kind of hard to not feel discouraged by this editorial process within Wikipedia when so much time and effort has been put into a submission. I am not only challenging this decision, I'm asking for a little more information so it doesn't happen again and I can happily find existing information gaps within the larger topic of education on Wikipedia.

Additionally, I searched the multiple names for E-teaching and none of them kicked me to technology integration. E-learning did however redirect me to [Educational technology] NOT Technology integration.

When you search E-teaching the following only superficially related articles are given in the search results.

Sincerely, mrkacrwaford

Mrkacrawford (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Mrkacrawford, first of all, thank you very much for the work you've put into the article. Reconsidering my review of it, I think I picked the wrong article for your article to be merged into; instead of Technology integration, I should have said Educational technology. Looking at just the first sentences of your article and Educational technology, I can't see the difference between "the effective use of technological tools in learning" and "[the use of] a wide array of digital tools to support teaching practice." To respond to your questions:

1. The splitting of subtopics into their own articles is described by WP:SUMMARY. In general, the most important thing to consider when creating a new article on a subtopic is whether the subtopic meets the notability standards on its own. So, in this case, most of the sources you cite (and I did read all of them) talk about E-teaching in the context of "the effective use of technological tools in learning"; it's unclear where E-teaching has been discussed in sources by itself.
2. There's a tool to see how many searches there are for a term at http://stats.grok.se. It works for redirects too, so you can see how many people specifically go to, say, E-learning.
3. The page on E-teaching has yet to be created, as the deletion log shows. That could mean that it hadn't occurred to anybody to create the page before you did, though.
4. Looking at the state the draft was in when it was declined the first time around, the reviewer identified a more pressing issue than the fact that the topic might have already been covered. Reviewers try to spot the most obvious issues first, and a promotional tone is more obvious from a first look at the page than a duplicated topic.

Sorry for the late response; hope this helps, and if you have any more questions, feel free to ask away. APerson (talk!) 00:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Security review RfC. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

Sorry to hear your bot got sick. Get well soon! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I gave it some over-the-counter oil and it should be fine. Thanks for your concern. APerson (talk!) 20:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Unreferenced. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello: Just a note that I have created a new user box for WikiProject Deletion sorting members, located at {{WikiProject Deletion sorting user box}}. Feel free to include it on your user pages if you'd like. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I hope I am asking this in the correct way- it is the first time that I am writing to a reviewer.

I wrote an article for inclusion in 2013 for the Australian Aviation Heritage Centre. (please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Australian_Aviation_Heritage_Centre )- where you reviewed it.

It was rejected as not being notable, which I interpret as have not sufficient third party sources. However, it is really just a list of aeroplanes and engines that are stored in the museum- so the museum itself should know what it has stored there, not a third person. The whole article is based on another Wikipedia article of another aviation museum: please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Australian_Aviation_Museum where all references and notes are referring just to their website. When I look at the Wikipedia list of aviation museums (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aerospace_museums ), most seem to just referring to their own webpages as source material. For the newspaper articles, most are what the museum has sent to the newspaper.

What I suggest is making this article into a stub. I can also fix the incorrect link in the References. Thanks for the opertunity to talk to someone - I did not know how to do this previously.Apple1Pie (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

First off, thank you for your work in writing the article! The reason I declined the article for notability reasons wasn't that it didn't have enough third party sources. Check out Wikipedia's general notability guideline: it says that topics have to have significant coverage in sources. This means that in addition to being discussed in third-party sources, the center has to be discussed significantly.

For instance, if there was a book written about the center, I'd definitely call it notable. However, at the moment, the draft doesn't cite any sources primarily about the center. The content at the end of the ABC article ("The Australian Aviation Heritage Centre [...] is one of the major aviation museums in Australia") is the sort of thing I'd like to see an entire news article filled with.

I'll look into that other article you linked to; it may need to be tagged for notability issues or even redirected or deleted. Basically, all you need for your draft is more sources that talk about it in a significant way. Hope this helps, and thanks again for your contributions! APerson (talk!) 21:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Non-administrator Arbitrators RfC. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:File Upload Wizard. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I have been using User:APerson/delsort.js lately. But I noticed that not all delsorts are available there. Can you modify your code to add all listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Compact? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Dharmadhyaksha, it'll take me a while to type in all of those lists, so you can use the "custom category" feature if you want to use other lists besides the ones listed in the select box, and it'll even check if the list you've given it is valid. Hope this helps! APerson (talk!) 15:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

{{done}} I see that in JJMC89's modified version of my script, he includes a much more expanded list, so I'm copying that over now. APerson (talk!) 22:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello - received your note as to why the notation I had submitted was not properly 'cited'. Just wondering what to do then? The source comes from Jennifer Phipps herself, here in Niagara on the Lake. The actual person. It was at her request the information was appended and her relationship to Nancy Price included. Jennifer Phipps (m. to Peter Boretski, so also known as Jennifer Boretski) is one of Canada's iconic, best loved actresses. Many thanks for your help on this. Barbara Worthy.

BabsW (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

BabsW, sorry! The reason I initially removed it is Wikipedia has very strict standards for proving facts with sources in biographies of living people, and I saw that you had added a sentence without a citation. Citation Style 1 provides some information on one way to add citations. Conducting an interview yourself is original research and generally isn't cited on Wikipedia articles. In this case, there's a source to cite for this, so I've added it back in. In the future, I'll be more careful with finding sources, and you may want to cite future additions to articles. Thanks for your contributions! APerson (talk!) 15:55, 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) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Aperson,

How are you doing today? I trust you are doing fine. Could you please help with copy editing on the above article? Thanks in anticipation. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikicology, sure, I'll go through and help with copyediting it. APerson (talk!) 23:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Community portal. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi — your decline of the draft submission of Bonnie McCay was a really bad decision. As submitted the article already contained and reliably sourced two independent claims of notability, each of which by itself would be enough to pass WP:PROF: that she holds a distinguished professorship at a major university and that she belongs to the National Academy. Please familiarize yourself with the academic notability guidelines before making such a decision again. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

David Eppstein, sorry about that. When I was reviewing that draft, I was just reading through the sources instead of considering the subject-specific notability guideline - I won't make that mistake again in the future. APerson (talk!) 15:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

For some reason, in the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff the Diseased Lung, I voted "Merge" and the vote above mine is "Speedy Keep". In the tool, the incorrect speedy keep is assigned to me. Is there an easy way to fix that? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Athomeinkobe, the tool is failing to parse the unsigned template left at the end of the vote above yours, meaning that it views that one and yours as one big !vote that starts with the bolded text "Speedy Keep". I made the tool count the vote correctly by replacing the template with my sig, which obviously isn't a permanent solution. I'll look into how the tool detects signatures as soon as I'm able to ssh in. APerson (talk!) 15:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, APerson! I have a quick question – what would make AfD stats miss an entry? For example, this is my current AfD stats list. But, for some reason, it's missing counting this one, and I can't figure out why... Any ideas? Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

IJBall, I looked into it, and I'm actually not sure. Your sig isn't the problem, all the timestamps are in order, and the two bolded !votes out front aren't the problem (I checked.) I plan to get on ssh later today and debug the part of the code that detects votes. APerson (talk!) 15:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

IJBall, I just put the source code for afdstats up on GitHub, if you're interested. APerson (talk!) 04:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Heh – way above my pay grade!! (But if somebody wants to teach me Python sometime!... Ha!!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, no problem! May I recommend a guide listed here? APerson (talk!) 04:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey, APerson – I was perusing another user's AfD's stats and I just noted that a vote for "Delete" for an article that was eventually "Userfied" was counted as a "didn't match". Seeing as "Userfy" is basically "Delete" as far as Mainspace articles are concerned, should that still be counted as "didn't match" rather than a "match" result? Just wondering if there's a reason for this... Thanks in advance! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

IJBall, my personal opinion is that "Userfy" means there's a consensus that the draft could be improved in the future enough that it could return to mainspace, while "Delete" means there's no chance this could happen. (Of course, I'm not the one who originally came up with which votes match and which don't, so I'm just giving a reason why those two votes could be counted as a "didn't match".) APerson (talk!) 22:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Top secret.jpg	Rubber Stamp Award
	Thank you for contributing. Nobody has to know about this unless you want them to. Congratulations.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Just what we needed, thank you! samtar ^whisper 07:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! APerson (talk!) 20:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@APerson: just tried voting on a candidate, this happened (appended to top of page) -- samtar ^whisper 08:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I know about this bug - it's a problem with the script trying to add a new vote to a section all the way at the end, with no text already in it. I didn't think it was a very common occurence, so I prioritized other bugs above it. I'll start debugging now. APerson (talk!) 18:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Samtar, I just fixed it - it should work now. Thanks for reminding me to fix the bug! APerson (talk!) 18:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

(barnstar moved to user space)

I was going to give you The Technical Barnstar but you already have one, so I decided on this because it is very Matrixy. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak, thank you! APerson (talk!) 03:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on User talk:Edmund Patrick. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

		Wikiclaus greetings
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you the happiest of Wikiclaus Wikipedia cheer. This message is intended to celebrate the holiday season, promote WikiCheer, and to hopefully make your day just a little bit better, for Wikiclaus encourages we all spread smiles, fellowship, and seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings and the happiest of holiday spirit from Wikiclaus !

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.

After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.

We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.

The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi APerson, anywhere in particular I can get to grip with how Javascript scripts work on Wikipedia? I'll admit, my JS is a little rusty but I'm always keen to program on here :) a lot of my time is spent on random labs projects :P Merry Christmas! -- samtar ^whisper 19:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

See

• User talk:Aymatth2#Ode de Pougy, Notre Dame aux Nonnains, Manassès II de Pougy, Church of St Urbain has been nominated for Did You Know and
• Template:Did you know nominations/Ode de Pougy, Notre Dame aux Nonnains, Manassès II de Pougy, Church of St Urbain

Why anyone would nominate four articles in one DYK submission is beyond me. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about that. Time to write some code to handle this case... APerson (talk!) 15:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

	The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
	Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 24:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Elitre (WMF), 00:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/Clerking RfC. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:ShadowsCommons. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

How hard would it be to also enable this script at WP:MFD? It also uses subpages, like AFD. sst✈ 16:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

sst, it wouldn't be that hard at all. However, I don't see why we'd need it at MfD, as WP:DELSORT only talks about sorting AfD discussions; as far as I know, the script should only be used for AfD discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Catholic. Legobot (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the bot you run, APersonBot, notified me yesterday of a DYK nomination for an article that I contributed to back in November. My problem isn't that it notified me twice in a row (which you kindly reverted to one notification) but that I had already been notified in November about it when it was first nominated. The nomination page hasn't actually been edited since 21 December. So I'm just wondering why it notified me now? Thanks for reading this (and for reverting the bot's second notification).  Seagull123  Φ  23:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Seagull123, the bot keeps a list of the people it's notified (and for what articles it's notified them for) so this situation normally never happens. However, I was recently running the bot on Tool Labs (as opposed to my own box) and I forgot to copy over this list, so the bot had no idea it had already nominated you. I'll make sure to copy the list over in the future - it was just an oversight on my part. APerson (talk!) 00:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! It wasn't really a problem, I just thought you might want to know about this. Anyway, thanks again.  Seagull123  Φ  00:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Your request, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/APersonBot 5, has been approved for trial; please see the request for next steps. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! APerson (talk!) 03:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

(barnstar moved to user space)

Thanks, NottNott! APerson (talk!) 01:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

G'day, I'd like to take you up on your offer of doing a run through my AfD votes to make them compliant with the tool. It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if you've had a chance to look at this yet, but the AfD tool still seems to show I have edited 123-odd AfD pages, but it is only picking up a dozen or so. Could there be another reason? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Oops! I'm sorry about that - I haven't gotten around to running the task on AWB yet. Firing it up right now. APerson (talk!) 00:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I've done half of them and have a technical fix to the tool that I think will fix it. APerson (talk!) 01:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Peacemaker67,  done. APerson (talk!) 01:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thanks very much for doing that, it really is appreciated. I suppose the rest were mainly Comment or something else? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, you're correct. There were a lot of comments. APerson (talk!) 03:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:China. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking at my AfD stats I noticed an error on the first individual AfD stats entry, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greasy Tracks. As nominator it should be counting my !vote as delete, but it appears to be counting the "keep" above my signature on the second !vote, not noticing the {{unsigned}} sig of the article creator. Not a big deal but I thought I'd make it known. Thanks for your work on this tool! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, thanks for reporting this! I've tested it a bit, and it looks like the way the tool detects unsigned signatures screws up in the most basic cases; I'll have a fix for this out soon. APerson (talk!) 00:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed APerson (talk!) 01:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/Conventions. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm building this entry for my client Pamela Marshall who is the partner of the late Denis Parsons. The text you referred to from St Josephs RC Church website was originally supplied to them by Pamela Marshall, so that she actually holds the copyright for that text. Sjukmidlands (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sjukmidlands: Ah, okay. The only problem is that you making that statement can't be used as a reason for keeping the text; you'll need to go through WP:OTRS in order to (more formally) let us know that a) you own the copyright on that text and b) you're willing to have it used on Wikipedia. Feel free to use live online help or the Teahouse if you need more help about this. APerson (talk!) 15:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

APersonBot hasn't edited since 11:00 AM my time (2:00 PM your time). I doubt the RPM has remained stable the entire time. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 01:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I dream of horses,  Fixed - apparently Pywikibot had forgotten I was logged in, so I had to log in again. This was probably a one-time error, related to the recent changes in MediaWiki's login API, but I'll look into it a little more. Also, it's surprising that I didn't get a warning email that the bot was down; I'll try get that configured so I can respond faster in the future. APerson (talk!) 03:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be down again. Mojoworker (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, and I hope that the fix I just made is a permanent solution. I'll be watching the bot closely to see if it's working. APerson (talk!) 03:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)