User talk:PumpkinSky/Archive 3

Hi PumpkinSky, I thought I'd let you know that I've renominated Icelandic Phallological Museum for Today's Featured Article for February 14, as discussed last September. If you have any thoughts on this the nomination is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Icelandic Phallological Museum. Prioryman (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is how the second award called Precious would have looked in br'erly style. Two awards looking like this had been issued before with different names, many more since. Remember: a year ago I thought I would never hear from you again.

ps: Precious Support stood for PumpkinSky all the time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next, I wrote With peace and joy I depart for 2 February, did you know, thinking of Rlevse saying peace some hundred times, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 February, Sanddunes Sunrise was installed, as a torch, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Ktr101 is now complete. Thank you for your assistance in the evaluation of this CCI.

Still sad you're gone, but you still deserve praise for helping out a great deal here well before it got the help it needed. --Wizardman 04:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I miss ya too buddy - take a break from admin. chores elsewhere and visit once in a while. :) — Ched :  ?  23:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 March 2013, Schon gewusst? was updated with a fact from the translation of the article Great Dismal Swamp maroons, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was: Harriet Beecher-Stowe berichtete nicht nur über Onkel Toms Hütte, sondern auch über die Great Dismal Swamp Maroons. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (quick check).

Danke sehr!PumpkinSky talk 23:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Like Oh my! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• :-D  :-D  :-D — Ched :  ?  23:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"These groups are very inspirational. As details unfold, we are increasingly able to show how people have the ability, as individuals and communities, to take control of their lives, even under oppressive conditions." take control ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know you were back until I just saw your RfA vote. I was asking Coren a few questions about you and Rlevse, but nothing personal and I've got nothing against you, just Coren. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Glad to see you are still around. Thanks for posting here. PumpkinSky talk 22:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to Wikipedia. :D • Jesse V.^(talk) 23:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, welcome back! Sarnold17 (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you here. --Orlady (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. So nice to see that signature again.(olive (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

• "I was asking Coren a few questions about you and Rlevse" — PumpkinSky and Rlevse?

Malleus... how on Earth is PumpkinSky supposed to know who Rlevse is? It's not like they're the same person or anything...

Just kidding. Welcome back! Kurtis ^(talk) 23:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also welcome back from me. Write away! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you everyone. PumpkinSky talk 02:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You came back! Awesome :-D Yngvadottir (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I guess I'm a glutton for punishment. ThanksPumpkinSky talk 20:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm, punishment. Really good to see you back, I felt badly after you left last time. The Interior (Talk) 22:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You want to know when I've done a new article? Yesterday, a five-fold expansion of Washington Harbour went online. So: tag, you're it! (I'll post to Montanabw's page next time.) - Tim1965 (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Simeon Magruder Levy, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Simeon Magruder Levy was in 1802 the first Jewish graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Simeon Magruder Levy. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

good to know ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Chippewa Kitchen is a pioneering structure consisting of wooden spars that are lashed together to support a layer of earth or clay. It provides convenience to a range of camp cooking operations:

• a surface for food preparation
• a place to hang tools and utensils
• a framework from which a pot can be suspended over a cooking fire
• a raised platform for cooking over hot coals ^[1]

This framework can be built in a variety of ways but the objective of any design is the construction of two waist-high parallel crossbars used to support the cooking platform. The most prevalent framework designs are two tripods, two A-frames, or a single “quadrapod.” <a title="By Larrygreen (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3A3-chippewa-kitchen-styles.jpg"><img width="512" alt="3-chippewa-kitchen-styles" src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/3-chippewa-kitchen-styles.jpg"/></a>

In camping terminology, and especially in the Boy Scouts, Chippewa Kitchens are referred to as both a complex “camp gadget,” due to the amount of lashings and degree of Scout engineering required in the building process, and a practical “campsite improvement,” because they get such regular use and provide a large measure of convenience. ^[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larrygreen/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrygreen (talk • contribs) 21:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It probably is but if you look at the edit summary of the person that declined it, it said "no sources or non reliable sources", or words to that effect. You only have one source and it might not pass a reliable source check. I suggest you look for better and more sources. I'm curious how you thought of me in this situation. PumpkinSky talk 22:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My memorybank stores lists of Wikipedians who know about particular topic areas ;) Although, I certainly didn't ask them to spam the entire draft onto your talkpage. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another new article: Eskimo (film). I promised someone it would get done today, and it is done. OK, so it's about Alaska and not Montana. But it does contain wife-swapping! Certainly that's a Montana custom. St. Peter's Mission gets done tonight or tomorrow. I chanced on some neat info and pictures yesterday that enabled me to put it to bed. - Tim1965 (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do they speak both English and Inupiat in it or are there two separate versions of the movie? Not clear from the text. Got a ref for the wife swapping? Isn't that a custom everywhere ;-) The Oscar is only in the lead and has no ref. PumpkinSky talk 23:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sound film. They speak English and Inpuiat (translated by the intertitles into English). I clarified the wife-trading name of the film by putting a cite at the end of that sentence. (Since the same cite is for both sentences in that paragraph, I tried to do double-duty.) The Oscar claim is in the "Critical Reception" section, third sentence: "Conrad A. Nervig won the very first Oscar for Best Film Editing for his work on Eskimo.[9]" - Tim1965 (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nom'd.PumpkinSky talk 21:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have reviewed this at DYK and have raised a couple of queries. Warden (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't help but notice that Eskimo is just hanging out there... questions asked and answered, but no movement. *sigh* - Tim1965 (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, PumpkinSky talk 23:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of what frustrates me about DYK. When I reviewed noms and had concerns, I monitored the nom daily to make sure I saw any responses quickly. That meant the nom got approved as soon as the author/nominator replied to me satisfactorily. Nowadays, that concern for others is just not there. One might think, "Oh, people get busy in the real world." True. But it happens so frequently, I don't think that's a viable rationale any more. It's so discouraging. - Tim1965 (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concern for others is something that's notably absent here at Wikipedia, which might go some way to explaining why the number of serious contributors is now down to just over 3000, and has been in decline for some time now. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the peak was early-mid 2007 so that's 6 years of steady decline with no sign of increasing again. We could go on and on about why.PumpkinSky talk 01:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the mix, I don't believe the number of active editors is anything like 3000, as that figure includes administrators doing whatever it is that administrators do. I'd suggest the real number is much closer to 2000. As to the reasons for the decline, that's probably a discussion to be had elsewhere, but one that few seem to have an open enough mind to participate in. Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please comment here: Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Congressional charter? Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 14:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alice Creek Historic District, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a study of lichens was used in the nomination process for the Alice Creek Historic District? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alice Creek Historic District. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice to meet you on the Main page, - do you remember that I wrote He was despised when our friend left? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. PumpkinSky talk 00:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! I need to get something to eat (Eastern Time here; I'm late), but I got delayed because someone needed me to clean up after a bigtime vandal. I archive my talk page at the end of every third month, so you just need to wait a week :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what your problem is, and I'm not interested. But when people make lists with Support/Oppose it's considered rude to start breaking up the flow by inserting comments into the list. I moved your comment to the Comment section for that very reason. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your problem is either. People put them in all the time. I was responding directly to Hero. Again, please leave me and mind edits alone. It's considered quite rude to mess with other peoples edits.PumpkinSky talk 21:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Amusing.

"You were not one of the Involved parties, so please ...". IRWolfie- (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

"Did you even bother to read that list of involved parties? I am not among them. Please take your blindness elsewhere.PumpkinSky talk 21:25, 24 March 2013"

IRWolfie- (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are amusing, you pointed to a list and I am not in that list.PumpkinSky talk 21:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As I was fully aware when I initially said you weren't one of the involved parties. A comment which you felt necessary to respond to with an accusation of my blindness, when you evidently misread my statement. You added a comment that has nothing to with the current issue, furthermore you insisted on inserting it very publicly in the discussion in a section where it's not really meant to be in a straw vote. Now you say you don't want to dredge the issues up, but that seems to be precisely what you want to do. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I did misread your statement. Apologize on that point, but I didn't say I wasn't willing to dredge up old unneeded stuff, I asked if that's what you really want. PumpkinSky talk 21:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that. I'll leave it up to you about what you want to dredge up or not, but I'd ask that you don't do it in the endorse/oppose polls. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right now it'd be unneeded and probably counterproductive, but I'm perfectly willing to do so if circumstances change.PumpkinSky talk 21:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Washington Harbour, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the postmodern architecture of the mixed-use development Washington Harbour (pictured) has been described as "pop art" and "cartoonish"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Washington Harbour. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Tuesday, February 21, 2002 - Sunday, March 31, 2013) My good friend and buddy, Snoopy the Beagle, is gone. This photo is how I want to remember him. He was very sick and I had the misfortune of watching him pass away at the house. He was a very good dog, brought a lot of happiness into the world--especially for my daughter, and I know he is holding his head high in Doggie Heaven. I'm really sorry you were so sick Snoopy, you deserved better. We did what we could for you. Rest in Peace good buddy. — Puppy of Dog The Teddy Bear • ^WOOF • 12:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was a fine dog. PumpkinSky talk 12:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahh... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry to hear P'Sky. Its hard when our pets die. We can't explain to them or give them much despite what they have given us. Your little dog sounds like you gave him a very happy doggie life, all he could have asked for. (olive (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you everyone. I really appreciate it. PumpkinSky talk 12:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for you and others who loved Snoopy, sadly missed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• very sorry. — Ched :  ?  17:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry to hear that too. Snoopy sounds and looks like a great dog, sorry to hear of his passing. • Jesse V.^(talk) 23:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • He was. Thank you everyone.PumpkinSky talk 00:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Dogs are our link to paradise. They don't know evil or jealousy or discontent. To sit with a dog on a hillside on a glorious afternoon is to be back in Eden, where doing nothing was not boring -- it was peace." (Milan Kundera) - Tim1965 (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've not read that before but it's utterly brilliant! PumpkinSky talk 23:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry to hear about Snoopy, too; I know what it's like to lose a pet. :( Best wishes. Acalamari 09:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the movie My Dog Skip (paraphrased) "My parents said they buried Skip under the elm tree, but that's not really true. He's really buried in my heart." And another thought from a friend: Everything happens for a reason. Never look at death as a bad thing but a step towards the future. We learn and gain so much from those who were once here with us they create laughter, joy and knowledge within us but when its their time they have to move on so that their spirit may grow in us and guide us from a higher source just know that just because you can't see them physically they are always with you in the heart and that is where they will touch you and feel you the most. PumpkinSky talk 01:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jusdafax 05:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only have a tangential involvement in this and just a few days ago tried to talk to Nikki to help settle it. PumpkinSky talk 09:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned this to Montanabw the day I put up this new article on March 25. But I don't think anyone put it up as a DYK nom, and now it's April 3 and we are way past the five-day deadline. Oh well. I won't have another Montana article for quite some time, as I've got a lot of very big articles I'm working on at the moment (and which are begging me for attention, like a Pirandello play character). Thanks for nom'ing the other two articles, though. - Tim1965 (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just nom'd it anyway. See my comment at Template:Did you know nominations/St. Peter's Mission Church and Cemetery PumpkinSky talk 23:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, someone who claims not to know how to edit Wikipedia is inserting claims about free-roaming bison in the article Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. There are several problems here, including not citing sources, NPOV, and arguing in edit summaries. I'm not entirely sure how to deal with this. I moved the discussion onto the article Talk page, and responded to the person. But the individual has already done an edit-reversion, and I absolutely won't engage in an edit war. But my sense is that this is an individual who has a real agenda to push, and you know how controversial an issue this is in Montana (I doubt it's going anywhere). Advice on how to handle this? I learly want someone else involved because that helps to calm things down and the person won't feel like it's personal with me. (And it's not; what do I care about bison on the refuge? They ain't gonna be free-roaming on the refuge, or Ted Turner's ranch, or in Yellowstone, or in my back yard.) - Tim1965 (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a host of queries about scouting articles, and I thought of you! In fact, I thought of directing the person here so that they'd copypasta their draft article all over your talk page again, but in a spirit of innovation I have tried a new approach: questions!

1. Are recipients of the Silver Antelope Award automatically notable in the same way that recipients of the Medal of Honor are?
2. Is the person described in the article draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chippewa Kitchen likely to be notable? (Warning: page is cunningly titled, but without the intention to mislead.)
3. Is the article draft at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chippewa Kitchen anywhere near being ready to be moved to mainspace? If not, what needs doing?
4. Do dolphins sleep?

Thanks for your help as always! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1)I'd say no, but it's certainly possible they are wiki notable as people who get the second highest award of a type have usually done other things to make them notable. MOH recipients are auto-wiki notable. I'd say Silver Buffalo Award recipients are wiki notable.

2) Yes, but because of all the writing he did and all the refs he's in. Article needs renamed to his name.

3) Yes, wikify it, wikilinks, ref fmt, etc and DYK it

4) Not sure, probably

Also, WP:SCOUT is a resource, but you can ask me too. I haven't been an active member there in ages. PumpkinSky talk 01:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THE ARTICLE IS SUPPOSED TO BE NAMED "ADOLPH PESCHKE"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrygreen (talk • contribs) 01:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Glenn Duffie Shriver, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Glenn Duffie Shriver. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Allen3 ^talk 17:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St. Peter's Mission Church and Cemetery, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that ex-slave Mary Fields was forced to leave St. Peter's Mission Church and Cemetery (pictured in 1884) by the bishop? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/St. Peter's Mission Church and Cemetery. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder — "Registered Historic Place" and its related forms shouldn't be used; we realised several years ago (around the time of WP:RFA/Rlevse, if I remember rightly) that this was a Wikipedia neologism. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the Registered Historic Place thing before leaving you this note. Naming convention from WP:NRHP is always to include the city name (see the first section of WP:NRHPMOS), and I've fixed the relevant links at the DYK nom. Note that I've also suggested an alt hook. Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's standard; see Bridgewater Historic District (Bridgewater, Pennsylvania) or Oxford Historic District (Oxford, Georgia), for examples. The nomination itself doesn't need to be moved; see the "How to move a nomination subpage to a new name" section of T:TDYK. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse? Rlevse? Who is this Rlevse you speak of? We don't need no stinkin Rlevse? (using the more popular misquote). — Ched :  ?  03:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You just filled the Prep area 2 that is targetted for Queue 6. The Ready For Love hook was originally a date request for that time slot. Can you rearrange some hooks?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

done PumpkinSky talk 09:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're doing precisely like what we normally do — we use name formats like Dr. Adam Mosgrove House and do likewise at the top of the infobox, rather than using "Mosgrove, Dr. Adam, House" for the article title or for the infobox. Note that Elkman's generator will return all possible results for whatever text you put in, even for partial names; if you'd typed simply Feller and told it to search Iowa, you would have gotten this site and no others. Partial names (and name searches in general) are much better for places with less-common names; when you're looking for a place named "City Hall" or "First Presbyterian Church", you'll find it easier to put the reference number in the second bar. Perhaps you've already seen this, but reference numbers (although hidden) are always in the code for the county lists; edit the page and scroll down to the entry for the site you want, and you'll see its reference number in the "refnum" parameter of the {{NRHP row}} template. Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah cool. Tks PumpkinSky talk 02:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Robert William Andrew Feller Farmstead: I modified the intro to add space between links and edited the infobox to reduce redundancy (I don't think we need to mention Van Meter in two straight lines, and the top of the infobox says US NRHP already, so we don't need to mention the country in the infobox), but besides that I only have three comments/questions. (1) Was Mrs Kellar's name "Janiece"? It's just that I've never seen the spelling before, so I wondered if it were a mistake when she was named or a mistake just now. (2) Is the baseball relevant enough to the farm itself that it belongs in the article's infobox? NR infoboxes generally have photos of the sites or no photo at all, not something tangentially related to someone who lived at the site in question. Note that I won't remove it, since it's not something thoroughly irrelevant. (3) Could you add page numbers to the nomination form citations? As far as I can see, none of the appearances of citation #5 has a page number (even something like {{rp}}), so unless it's a really minimal form like this one (Ginn's Furniture Store), it really needs to have page numbers added. Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That spelling is what is in the form. 2) I can't find a free photo of the farm and I try hard to avoid fair use ones, and I like the baseball, maybe we could move it to the body 3) I've never put page numbers in the nom form refs before. what brought it up this time? PumpkinSky talk 11:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) No complaints then; I just wanted to ensure that this was what the form said. 2) I just wonder if no photo might be better than one that's not at all related to the farm itself. 3) Apparently I've looked more at this one than at others you've written; I would have said the same about others. It's just that these nominations have enough information that we can't treat them as a large unpaginated document; it's enough work to find information on one page, and requiring any cite-checkers to check multiple pages for everything seems a bit too much work. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried some contacts to get a free photo but can't and I hate articles with no photo. Know anyone around that area? I'm not going back to read the doc to find pages but I'll keep it mind for others. PumpkinSky talk 02:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eskimo (film), which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the 1933 film Eskimo (poster pictured) was the first movie with sound in a Native American language? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eskimo (film). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you're still around the campfire. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marshmallow and Hot dog time. :-) — Ched :  ?  17:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, glad to hear from you. PumpkinSky talk 22:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yum! I'm bringing S'mores! Montanabw^(talk) 15:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I love campfires! :D • Jesse V.^(talk) 03:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No barnstar, awesome wikipedian or other award for that? Not even "Win 2nd place in beauty contest, collect $10?" Fladrif (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope.PumpkinSky talk 22:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replied their talk, as the one feeling responsible for those awards, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then I hereby award you the Purple Barnstar:

		The Purple Barnstar
		Your return after the RFA hardships shows your commitment to Wikipedia, its values, and the overall continuation of the project as a whole. • Jesse V.(talk) 04:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OH, why thank you very much. PumpkinSky talk 09:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support the barnstar, happy to have been patient ;) - sad that we have to wait for the next, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I echo the sentiments of Gerda and Jesse as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PumpkinSky. Welcome back, have some stroopwafels! darwinfish 14:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

YUMMY!!! Can I get whip cream and syrup? Bitte. PumpkinSky talk 15:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schlagsahne dazu! Bishapod, something of a linguist, 16:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Ausgezeichnet! mit Kirschen zu??PumpkinSky talk 18:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Confused. Not that much of a linguist.] You want churches with that? bishapod talk to your inner fish 18:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

No, I want cherries. Church = Kirche. Auf Deutsch cherry and church are only one letter different (the 's'). PumpkinSky talk 19:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cherries, with diamonds, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More YUMMY treats, wow!PumpkinSky talk 20:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know.... horses given sugar get nippy.  :) - Tim1965 (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New article: James Leal Greenleaf. He landscaped the Lincoln Memorial. - Tim1965 (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) In private life, what's "Greenleaf was a United States" supposed to mean? 2) What does the census have to do with water power? 3) Where's the Montana connection? PumpkinSky talk 22:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "United States Republican", but that's fixed. Dunno what the census has to do with water power, but back in the day the Census conducted all sorts of studies because other agencies lacked the capacity. And there is no Montana connection; but you wanted to know all the new articles I've been working on. (Robert Vaughn Homestead is up next, but I'm having trouble getting sources, so it's taking a while.) - Tim1965 (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PumpkinSky. Thanks for suggesting World Digital Magnetic Anomaly Map to be the lead at the dyk nom page. Appreciate that! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's a cool pic and interesting article. PumpkinSky talk 09:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you close the nomination of List of Wikipedia controversies as rejected? There was a lot of active discussion and disagreement, but some hooks did meet with wider approval.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the edit summary. Very controversial that the article even exists. Not the sort of thing we want on the main page. If you want to open it again go ahead.PumpkinSky talk 00:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Can you please provide a tick on the DYK nomination page? Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DONE. PumpkinSky talk 11:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, PumpkinSky:

I reviewed this DYK nomination and rejected it, since the article wasn't new and the recent expansion wasn't five-fold. User:TreyGeek claims on his talk page that "the criteria for new articles states that an article which was moved from user space to main space (as this article was) is considered to be new once it reaches main space." That is not my interpretation of the "rule". You are certainly more experienced and knowledgable than I; would you provide an opinion, please? Mgrē@sŏn 17:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TG is correct. See Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Eligibility_criteria rule 1d " Articles that have been worked on exclusively in a user or user talk subpage or at articles for creation and then moved (or in some cases pasted) to the article mainspace are considered new as of the date they reach the mainspace." I do this all the time, work on them in a user subpage and move them to main space. It was moved on 23 Apr so is eligible but it has a merge tag and that needs to be dealt with before approval, and other items looked at. PumpkinSky talk 21:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert William Andrew Feller Farmstead, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the father of Bob Feller (signed baseball pictured) changed the crop on the family farm from corn to wheat so that the future baseball Hall of Fame pitcher could play more baseball? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert William Andrew Feller Farmstead. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you on the Main page, St. Ulrich, Vienna in the same set ;) - congrats to your own pic there! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danke, and yes that was neat!PumpkinSky talk 09:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Helena Historic District (Helena, Montana), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Helena Historic District (Atlas building pictured) required a major boundary adjustment when urban renewal in the 1970s destroyed over 60 historically significant buildings? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Helena Historic District (Helena, Montana). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you, by any chance, have access to academic journals related to Montana, either print or digital? I'm not asking because I need help but because I wanted to spread the wealth. I've found numerous Montana-related articles in the Plains Anthropologist through JSTOR; if you have any way to access this journal, you may well find it useful. Nyttend (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not myself. I do have a friend who pulls JSTOR stuff for me though. Thanks for the tip. PumpkinSky talk 18:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. In case you've forgotten: remember that you can always access everything down to the issue level (example), and you always have citation access for anything. Nyttend (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to bother you but I noticed you just moved the Râpa Roşie nomination to prep area 2. Has this actually been reviewed - all I'm seeing is a comment? SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crap! My bad. I'll fix it. Good catch. PumpkinSky talk 12:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this an honor! But my job is not done yet. My goal is to trim the backlog back to <50 nominations!—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 12:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this? It's unclear what the implication of that particular revision is to the incident I was discussing with Ched. NE Ent 20:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems obvious to me. Massive indef support = the community is fed up with Fladrif = Ched was right. PumpkinSky talk 21:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "wrong," I said imprudent. NE Ent 21:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that too but it's a moot point now so let's move on. PumpkinSky talk 21:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why people are avoiding this nomination like the plague, but IMHO the only thing which it is waiting for is someone who picks a hook. Seeing as you got involved with this nomination before (though merely in a mediating role), could you please take a second look at it and approve one of the hooks? If you happen to identify any additional issues and list them, then of course that's fine too. Thanks in advance! —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 20:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

done PumpkinSky talk 20:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 20:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		Cookies!
		Amberrock has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

On 1 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James Leal Greenleaf, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that James Leal Greenleaf was a civil engineer who also landscaped the Washington Monument? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/James Leal Greenleaf. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I did not know, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

testing new notification system. Let me know if that big orange "you've got new messages" thing is now gone per that "echo" notification system. — Ched :  ?  11:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope no big orange bar, just that dinky thing by your user name on the top right. PumpkinSky talk 13:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does wiki now think it's effing Facebook? Montanabw^(talk) 18:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, facebook with articles. PumpkinSky talk 18:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ROTF-LMFAO .. nothing like being blunt with "da main man". Using that "F-word"? What /ARE/ we gonna do with you PS. :P — Ched :  ?  18:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block me. No big deal. It's done before, though very unjustly. PumpkinSky talk 21:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Test post Begoon ^talk 21:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Begoon ^talk 22:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, before I forget to mention it, one of the discussions says the script doesn't work with Internet Explorer (8?), so if you're using that, that could be the issue. I think on this one the WMF will have to bend, so if none of this works it may not matter in the long run. Good to chat, anyway, I used to see you around the Scout stuff a bit when I was helping Chris with some images way back when - think you gave me some sort of shiny Star or something. Hope life is better now than the shitty patch you went through. The pedia is good at hurting its own, and like fools we come back... Begoon ^talk 22:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's working. I am usually on Firefox when I do wiki, sometimes IE9. THANKS! See the "rape" comment I made on Jimbo's page.PumpkinSky talk 22:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, although I'm afraid you may not like my opinion of the "rape" comment, sorry, I felt that was a stumble over some sort of arbitrary line I'd draw in the sand. But I don't like my daughter's schoolteachers calling me by my first name in front of the kids either, so that may help position me on the fuddy-duddy scale... :) Begoon ^talk 23:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I probably was too much, but when others can call users things like "cunt"....PumpkinSky talk 23:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know... Many times I think I'll never post here again because of the basic inhumanity and childishness I see. Just back from another 3 month break myself - for how long, who knows... I saw your story from the sidelines, and can't properly feel how much it must have hurt. Get back at the 'bastards' by not getting back at the 'bastards' when they need you to. It works for me, and confuses the shit out of them. :) Begoon ^talk 00:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. PumpkinSky talk 01:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		It takes a lot of class to stand up in a very public place and say "Sorry, I got carried away". I admire that - and you know where I'm coming from with this, so 'nuff said. — Ched :  ?  12:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danke vielmals!PumpkinSky talk 14:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the time you spent to comment at the FAC for Fort Yellowstone.--MONGO 02:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.PumpkinSky talk 09:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ariya Jutanugarn, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Ariya Jutanugarn, at age 11, was the youngest player ever to qualify for an LPGA Tour event? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ariya Jutanugarn. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey PumpkinSky, hope you're doing well. I see you've promoted the Birmingham crisis DYK into prep 2. That's cool, and I don't mean to be too nitpicky, but I am kind of into this rolling 50 year anniversary thing... and we missed the opportunity to run the original hook on 11 May.

If you look at the template, you'll see that I wrote an Alt1 to run on 18 May, relating to a different part of the "Birmingham crisis". I think this is the hook that reviewer Simon Burchell meant to approve, since they modified the text of it slightly to improve the link to Birmingham.

So, if you would be so kind as to demote the current hook... and place Alt1 into holding for 18 May (2013)... I would really appreciate it! Happy (rolling) 50th anniversary of (this particular part of the) US Civil Rights Movement!

<3 groupuscule (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Sorry I've been a little sloppy with the signature lately... I took a little wikibreak and apparently unlearned a few habits :-)

Done. Note, while the alt hook says 18 May, you didn't actually ask for 18 May ;-) PumpkinSky talk 09:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you are true. I'ma get with the program though! Just watch. Thanks for your help.

groupuscule (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Real Life Barnstar
		message — Ched :  ?  02:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK .. I am way too tired to fix that thing .. never did understand the "subst" crap. The bottom line is that I really appreciate everything you have done for this project.. and everything you have done for me. Years ago it was the "your day" thing you did, and even dropping an email to say "Miss ya .. come back". You truly are an amazing person, and I am so glad that I met you. (well sorta .. we never actually met IRL .. just ... whatever). Anyway, be it your work to acknowledge a WW II vet bio, to promote some DYK thing, or just an effort to reach out an touch another person in a real way ... You've been in the glass tower of arbcom .. to the hell of damnation ... and you always cared about others. You are one very special person .. and I just wanted to say that. TY PS. — Ched :  ?  02:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you Ched. I really truly appreciate that. PumpkinSky talk 03:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the "Like" button on this thing??? Ariel♥Gold 03:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You type {{like}} PumpkinSky talk 11:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You also vote keep if you want to use it in the future. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you consider changing the image to the alternative one for Mount Elbert? I think it looks nicer (although I do have a COI so I won't do anything with the hook myself). Thanks --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 13:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest a third person as I disagree with you on which one looks better.PumpkinSky talk 20:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi PumpkinSky! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I suggested some hooks at gerda's. Hope theire OKi. Have fun! Serten (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda told me you have the position of Elderly martial arts master on Commons. I sent them the greenlight from Triberg municipality (in one mail) for for the OTRS process

Strobel IMG 6597.JPG

Triboll.JPG

TRIGRUN.jpg

TRIORANG.jpg

So far no reaction. Hope that is not unnormal. Revering bow of head Serten (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ui, thats was quick. Serten (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What was quick? OTRS isn't processed yet, I'm looking into it.PumpkinSky talk 10:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I got some messages already, they havent found the photos first. Serten (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found the photos on Commons just fine. They are probably looking on DE wiki. You have two threads in OTRS. While I know some German and have done some DE-EN and EN-DE wiki translation work, I can't quite make out what is going on in the thread where you are talking to the other guy. What is that about? Most tickets sit in OTRS for a long time because people don't provide enough info.PumpkinSky talk 11:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point is that I asked per mail the Head of department of tribergs town hall to have her guys sending me fotos and give a formal Ok for the use of the Photos. I formally asked her to have their pictures being OKed based on CC commons 3.0.

• Ansonsten benötige ich eine Bestätigung aus Triberg, daß die Bilder nach folgender Lizenz freigeben werden Dieses Werk bzw. Inhalt steht unter einer Creative Commons Namensnennung - Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0 Unported Lizenz.
• A clerk of hers answered Yes (hiermit erteilen wir Ihnen die Erlaubnis, dass die zugeschickten Fotos verwendet werden dürfen.) and got my forward of the mail to him and permissions and went into vacation ;) permissions asked him the whole gibberitch again, I think thats overkill but forwarded the cnversation to the municipality Serten (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, everything worked so far. Thank you. I added another suggestion to the hook list and look forward wether the article willbe nominated. Cheers Serten (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article IS nominated, keep watching ;) (next Bach cantata title: Laßt uns sorgen, last uns wachen) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, if you want to have a good laugh, have a look what teutonic Wikipedia did with my translation of Damsel in distress ;) Serten (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PumpkinSky. I can't help but believe that you are a better person than what is reflected by your last edit to Jc37's talk page. I am not your enemy and I do believe you suffered many wrongs on this site. Please don't allow these things to erode the core of your inner self. If you are able, please remove the comment as misplaced commentary. If you are not able, please allow me to remove it without any feelings of animosity. I wish you the best.--My76Strat (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you experienced what I did, you'd understand. Until that time, you only think you can understand. I won't remove it nor the one on Townlake's talk page; but I also won't interfere with what others do in that regard.PumpkinSky talk 23:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not claim to understand. I simply hold you in high esteem and have witnessed the strength of your character which I hold as emulable. I apologize for interjecting myself in this matter where I do not belong. And I still wish you the very best.--My76Strat (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove the two posts if you think it's right. PumpkinSky talk 23:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited you regarding an issue with another editor, at WP:ANI#Persistent edit stalking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commented, but I doubt it'll do much good.PumpkinSky talk 23:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is such a small thing it's arguably not worth wasting your time to read, but here it is. I have noticed many times when you sign a post you forget to include a space before your signature; I used to do the same. Have you considered beginning your custom signature with a non-breaking space?--My76Strat (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never occurred to me. Hmm....PumpkinSky talk 23:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been doing it for over a year now. Faster that way. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alfred Beckley, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Alfred Beckley, the founder of Beckley, West Virginia, found the townsite a "perfect wilderness"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alfred Beckley. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nominating Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3 for WP:TFA/R. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS By the way, WP:FAR is not the same as WP:TFA/R, so you had me a bit worried with your initial post on my talk page ;-)

Oh, DOH on me! Yes, I know that, I just goofed. PumpkinSky talk 10:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - thought it was a bit funny after my initial mini-panic attack. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Daniel Vineyards Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I didn't know you'd come back to editing! Nice to have you around again ... Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. PumpkinSky talk 17:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PumpkinSky,

May I please request that the Sue Sarafian Jehl DYK be included with the picture? I worked so hard to get in contact with the family and have the picture permitted. I promised them that they will see it on the main page of Wikipedia. Please PumpkinSky. I will greatly appreciate it. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really can't make promises like that. It's not the greatest of pics (dim light and shadows), but I'll think about it. The top things I look for in the lead with photo are: 1) a high quality photo and 2) diversity of topics. Everyone wants their pics in the lead slot and there simply are not enough slots. PumpkinSky talk 22:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright PumpkinSky, I am fine with it being placed with any other Prep. You're right I shouldn't have promised them but nevertheless, they would love the see it on the main page. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's now the lead. PumpkinSky talk 02:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've passed Frederick Russell Burnham as a GA. Good work.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, thanks!PumpkinSky talk 01:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee Walking Horse needs a GA reviewer, FYI, it's wikicup entry for Dana too. Montanabw^(talk) 19:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Started. PumpkinSky talk 20:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Norma Ashby, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Montana television hall of fame inductee Norma Ashby was kissed by Robert Goulet during an interview, and once featured a rancher on her local KRTV show who gutted a rattlesnake on live television? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Norma Ashby. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You approved this DYK? nomination of mine--Template:Did you know nominations/Leni Yahil--with my original hook rather than with the alternate hook (which is the hook that I prefer). Can you please fix this? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and oops. PumpkinSky talk 20:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. Futurist110 (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, one quick last thing--are you able to please promote this DYK? nomination of mine--Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Robert_Alexander_Early? It already got approved, so all it needs is someone to promote it. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing it, and so quickly for that matter. :) Futurist110 (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. PumpkinSky talk 23:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over and promoted the DYK? nomination for Daniel Vineyards (located here: Template:Did you know nominations/Daniel Vineyards) right now. I also put this DYK? nomination/article in the DYK? Prep Area here--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_3#Hooks. Did I do everything correctly, and do you want me to do anything else? Futurist110 (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK--I have moved this DYK? nomination/article/hook here--Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4. Did I do everything correctly now, and do you want me to do anything else? Futurist110 (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took out (pictured) from the hook. You only leave that in if it's the first hook with photo shown. You also left out the DYKmake lines, this is what gives people credit for it. Do you know how to do that? Copy all the DYKmake lines from the nom page and drop them overwriting the DYKmake lines labelled with "example" in the prep set. Some noms have multiple lines, most only one. When a prep is done all the example lines should be gone. PumpkinSky talk 23:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I did not do this before, so I honestly need some help with this. Futurist110 (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fine. Follow my steps as best you can. Copy the hook (already done) and DYKmake to the prep set before you hit save with the subst: and yes entered (which you seem to have learned). Saving adds all that gook to the nom making it harder to find stuff. If you forget to do so, call up an older version of the nom to find it more easily. Check out this edit. I don't save the prep set upon every hook, just every few. Pick a good set of diversified hooks. Pic a lead with a pic that looks good at the DYK 100x100 resolution. For the pic, copy that from the nom over to the line in the prep where it has the example photo line. If you want, finish prep4 and I'll look it over when you're done. I put the example hook lines back in. It makes things easier until you're done.PumpkinSky talk 23:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now finished updating Prep Area 4. Let's seriously hope that I did everything correctly. Also, thank you very much for offering to help me archive my talk page information, but I want to wait until my 21st birthday in a couple of weeks before doing it. Futurist110 (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my mistake on that Danish hook. I just checked my e-mail right now--what was I supposed to find there? Also, is everything else good with my work on Prep Area 4? Futurist110 (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Email should be there now. Yep, P4 looks good now. PumpkinSky talk 00:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Yeah, I didn't know about the quirky hooks part, but I guess that I will do that next time that I am working on this. Also, if you don't mine me asking, are you able to award a Wikipedia Barnstar Award to me in several days once all of my pending DYK? nominations get a chance to be on the Wikipedia front page? By that point, I will have 25 or more (separate) DYK? nominations, which is enough for a specific Wikipedia Barnstar Award in this department. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The blackberry wine thing is kinda quirky so it will do. No sweat. On the barnstar thing, sure, let me know when you hit 25. With the in the sets I have right now, I have 98. PumpkinSky talk 00:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, once all of my currently pending DYK? nominations are put on the Wikipedia front page, I should have 25 or more total DYK? nomination. Also, one tiny thing--here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know/Queue#Queue_3_.5Bedit.5D -- on Leni Yahil's DYK? nomination, you wrote "... advocateda balanced ..." whereas it is supposed to be "... advocated a balanced ..."; The "a" is supposed to be a separate word--you simply made a typo. Can you please fix this typo whenever you can? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Geoffrey Ling, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that U.S. Army neurologist Dr. Geoffrey Ling (pictured) described the problem of developing quality artificial arms, which include a proper sense of touch, as "doggone hard"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Geoffrey Ling. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm missing the other diffs that justify the block, but blocking for calling someone a "pompous ass" seems like major overkill. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 17:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the comments made are inappropriate including:

1. June 16th 2013 "You want professionals? Go hire some and pay them. I don't volunteer my time to put up with pompous asses like you."[2]
2. June 5th 2013 "Sandy, how damned sanctimonious of you. The lessons you should have learned here have been totally lost on you. Have you checked your precious MEDRS stuff for compliance lately?"[3]
3. June 2nd 2013 "I can by to see what you were up to and saw you haven't edited in three months. Good riddance because the way you and Townlake behaved on my talk page in Oct 2012 was appalling. You should be ashamed on both a personal and admin level. But I'm sure you're not. But that is okay because karma will get you and I won't have to do a thing." [4] and [5]
4. Other concerning comments include: [6] with issues occurring back in July 2011 as well [7]

Pumpkin was warned here [8]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, none of those posts have anything to do with Tony1. Not to mention this block is almost as involved on your part as the infamous Moni block. If you're not man enough to admit to the community you couldn't wait to make this block because of your feelings for Will and against me, at least admit it to yourself. You're reaching at straws here and it's obvious, shown by the fact Dennis questioned it even before I got here.PumpkinSky talk 18:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, I respectfully disagree. Using diffs all the way from 2011 isn't valid. His comment to Sandy was only blunt. The first link in #4 seem legitimate. The "Karma" comments were over the line but two weeks ago. Those were worthy of a strong warning, and an editor already talked it out with them. However, calling Tony a "pompous ass" after Tony started a discussion on the "Hall of Lame", mocking the efforts of fellow Wikipedians, was arguably apropos. Context matters. Was PumpkinSky being an ass to Tony? Perhaps in an ironic way, but it it was mild incivility, not a block-worthy personal attack. I think your threshold is too low today, and would ask you reconsider the block. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? While I think the comment might have been a bit far, it was in a heated discussion where the premise of the whole section was basically belittling the work of others. Bringing back comments from 2011 is ridiculous. Please unblock.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblock, consider context, as said by others before, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also support unblock. PS's response was not out of bounds considering the caustic "serotonin fix" remark by the other editor which by the way was directed at multiple editors involved with DYK and thus, unlike PS's retort, acted as a blanket statement characterising many editors, which is never a good idea, especially for controversial statements involving the effects of DYK on the brain neurotransmitters of editors. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once the block has expired Pumpkin will be free to contribute positively to Wikipedia. Comments such as this "If you're not man enough to admit to the community you couldn't wait to make this block because of your feelings for Will and against me, at least admit it to yourself." does not improve matters. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Venting while blocked is a common matter and should not be used retroactively to justify the block. Your reply also does not address my main point which was that medical speculation about the serotonin levels of a group of editors involved with DYK is at least as uncivil as PS's reply, if not more so because it is addressed at a group of editors as opposed to a single editor and compares them to addicts. PS's block is unjustified and disproportionate. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Dr K. And as for Doc J, thanks for showing you're not impartial here. PumpkinSky talk 21:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 21:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DB. I have no need to comment there nor have a comment copied there. The evidence on both sides speaks for itself. PumpkinSky talk 22:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @PumpkinSky, I've unblocked you per the discussion here and at WP:AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to all of you who supported me during this turn of events. PumpkinSky talk 22:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Bbb, thanks for beating me to it. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Like unblock, don't like another waste of time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Gerda. PumpkinSky talk 22:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I appreciate your patience and trust during the process. Sometimes it takes a few hours to do things the right way, by asking the admin, then allowing the community to opine. It isn't perfect, but the system does work with a little time. I don't really know Doc James, so I am going to assume good faith, and that he just had a bad day for judgement. It happens to us all. I'm also grateful that everyone stayed civil, and recommend more of the same. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 00:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Some es teler for you!
	I missed the recent turn of events, but I must say I'm shocked at how quickly you got shafted. Have some es teler; I can't give you anything alcoholic, but the name is synonymous with "high" (it's somewhat more delicious than it looks).  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not shocked. Read my comments in my archive I just made and you'll understand. PumpkinSky talk 01:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found there: "I don't really know Doc James, so I am going to assume good faith, and that he just had a bad day for judgement." Dennis (and everybody interested), I certainly don't know him, but you can start with his contributions to the Pumpkinkin RfA (link on the bottom of my user, easy to find, there's a red link right next to it). He simply signed "Doc" then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ps: if we really need to go back to 2011, respect, quote "we should know each other enough by now" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is the same Doc, although that did lead me to another use of "Pompous ass" [9] (by an admin and friend) that didn't lead to a block. For that matter, sometimes I'm a pompous ass. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 10:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I got the Docs confused, same is true for the other, that I don't really know him but this, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had completely forgotten that I spoke out there [10] but only on the methods, not the merits. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 13:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess I shouldn't be shocked either, come to think of it. *sigh* — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there's one thing I've noticed as a constant about this project, it's how quickly we're willing to throw people under the bus. Sorry it was you on this occasion. Prioryman (talk) 06:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am used to such things now and expect them. Once you've been forced to wear The Scarlet Letter on wiki, you can never get rid of it. PumpkinSky talk 11:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am more inclined to think of the French Revolution (the Reign of Terror) than The Scarlet Letter when I observe this kind of behavior at Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to drop you a note to thank you for your good work quickly progressing approved DYK nominations, and this seems a very apt time to do so. Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone! PumpkinSky talk 11:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PumpkinSky,

I now have more than 25 DYK? nominations. As you told me a couple of days ago, you are willing to give me the appropriate Wikipedia Barnstar Award for this (I think there is one for 25 DYK? nominations) once I have enough DYK? nominations, and I now have enough of them. Thus, are you able to please give me that Wikipedia Barnstar Award whenever you are able to? Thank you very much. Also, since you currently have 98 DYK? nominations (including those that are still "in process"), did anyone ever give you a Wikipedia Barnstar Award for having 50 DYK? nominations? If not, I can give you one of these awards. Anyway, have a good day and take care. Futurist110 (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I have the 50 award. Do you have anything like this: User:PumpkinSky/Articles#DYK_stats. We're supposed to link to proof for these awards. PumpkinSky talk 00:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created a page right now which has all of my previous DYK? nominations. This page is located here: User:Futurist110/DYK. I seriously hope that this is enough proof for you for me to receive this Wikipedia Barnstar Award. Also, I'm glad that you already have that 50 award. Futurist110 (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I have now moved this award to my (front) user page. Also, please let me know one you hit 100 or more DYK? nominations so that I can give you the appropriate award for it. Futurist110 (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I added a little message for my award. I hope that you won't mind. Futurist110 (talk) 01:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were so eager I couldn't finish the award ;-) but I finally got it on your talk page. Move/whatever as you like. I also put the DYK notices back on your talk page so your history stays intact. I have the DYKs in my archives and in the page I showed you. This is where the awards list is: Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs PumpkinSky talk 01:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks again for my award, and I'm sorry for being so eager, but it's just that I worked extremely hard to earn this award. Thank you very much for giving me that link to the DYK? awards. It feels extremely nice when one's work on Wikipedia is noticed and appreciated. This is why, for instance, I was so eager to get this award and to get a separate Wikipedia Barnstar award for my Grover Cleveland Presidential campaign, 1892 Wikipedia article. Futurist110 (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, all understandable. PumpkinSky talk 09:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Daniel Vineyards, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that West Virginia's Daniel Vineyards' best selling style of wine is made from blackberries, not the normal grapes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Daniel Vineyards. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Franz Kafka know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 3, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 3, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Franz Kafka (1883–1924) was a German-language writer of novels and short stories, and is regarded as one of the most influential authors of the 20th century. His works, such as "Die Verwandlung" ("The Metamorphosis"), Der Process (The Trial), and Das Schloss (The Castle), are filled with themes and archetypes of alienation, brutality, parent–child conflict, and mystical transformations. Kafka was born into a middle-class Jewish family in Prague, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He trained as a lawyer and worked for an insurance company, writing in his spare time – he complained all his life about his lack of time to write. Kafka wrote hundreds of letters to family and close female friends, including his fiancée Felice Bauer. Only a few of Kafka's stories appeared during his lifetime in story collections and literary magazines. His novels and other unfinished works were published posthumously, mostly by his friend Max Brod, who ignored his wish to have the manuscripts destroyed. Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre are among the writers influenced by Kafka's work; the term Kafkaesque has entered the English language to describe surreal situations like those in his writing. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waaay ahead of you! PumpkinSky talk 23:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra Meeker pics in de, how is the licensing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on DE copyright law, but as the two pics there are pre 1923 I don't foresee a problem. PumpkinSky talk 22:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, - a question on Schon gewusst, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Frederick Russell Burnham may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• = New York|id=[http://openlibrary.org/books/OL24367664M/The_downfall_of_Lobengula OL24367664M]]| oclc = 4585632}}
• * {{cite book| ref ={{sfnRef|Unger|1901}| last = Unger| first = Frederic William| title = With "Bobs"

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words and thanks again for nominating it for the Main Page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help!PumpkinSky talk 20:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo PumpkinSky, I have developed a sort of honor code for Wikipedians, based on the Toastmasters promise [11] and the first members have joined the order. I understood from Gerda you speak some german and she thought you would be willing to join ;). The order is called the "Pfarrerstochter" (The parsons daughter) with some allegations to a 19th century informal german fraternity stammtisch and to Theodore Hook. I think a honor code combined with a sort of ribbon ar bable which is carried by authors willing to work accordingly would be helpful for WP. I wouldlike to have your feedback on that. And as said, if you want to join, youre heartily invited.

• de:Pfarrerstochter (Erlangen)
• de:Wikipedia:Mediationstipps
• de:Benutzer:Serten/Unter uns Pfarrerstöchtern

Serten (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you plan on doing an RfC after the request is archived, please let me know as I will have some comments to add to it. I may also be able to co-certify it since I presented evidence in the most recent Transcendental Meditation case if you need it. Cla68 (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I probably won't be filing one but someone probably will. PumpkinSky talk 00:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The United Nations can solve things quicker and easier than wiki can, and that's scary." And the most frightening part of all? That's not an exaggeration — it's the actual truth. The United Nations is more effective at solving problems than Wikipedia. At first I found your post amusing, but now it just depresses me. You are 100% correct on every point. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and yes, that's sad but true.PumpkinSky talk 00:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're worse than an organization that can't prevent a genocide, a dirty war, the Cold War, a massacre, the Arab-Israeli conflict, etc. It's a good thing we don't run the planet! Kurtis ^(talk) 09:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amen Brother Kurtis! PumpkinSky talk 09:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PumpkinSky, this is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which you submitted, has been declined to be heard by the Arbitration Committtee. The Arbitrators generally felt that this was not yet ready to be heard by the Committee, and other steps in the dispute resolution process (such as an RFC/U) should be utilised, please feel free to view the Arbitrators' comments for further advice. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This issue will be back there one day. too bed all this time was wasted and there'll be more innocent victims. PumpkinSky talk 09:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) comment. I'll admit that I think there was a "fail" on the part of Arbcom here. Not just in the lack of consistency as far as strictness (and admittedly I tend to favor a more lenient approach - but understand the need for "tough love" in the sense of these are the rules, and they are the same for everyone). My "fail" comment however is pointed at a missed opportunity. I appreciate that one of the Arbs (Worm ?) is willing to revisit if it happens again .. but basically all the community got was individual thoughts from a few arbs. There was the opportunity here for AC to make a statement (either by motion or at AC/N) about what is and is not acceptable. Instead all we got were a couple of "yea, I can see that there might be a problem with some of this" - very weak in respect to some of the past committee efforts. I know times have changed; still as much as I like "lenient" I think there's a lot to be said about the old days when parental units set down rules, and there were ramifications for not following them. So the lack of consistency here I think actually hurts in some ways. I would have been much more comfortable with some sort of "DJ is admonished" (or reminded, whatever terminology they're using these days.) In a sense AC has turned a blind eye here, which opens up a whole can of "it's ok for admins to violate policy as long as they say I'm sorry and promise to be more careful" worms. I'd think it would be doubly hard as a former arb, cause I can see a good case for "Shit, I wish I'd have known we could do this, cause I wouldn't have supported smacking ... idk ... "TimidGuy" or "Law/the_undertow" .. or whatever cases you sat in on PS. Don't get me wrong - I do respect the office of Arbcom, and I do respect the individuals who serve on it - but the lack of even some sort of statement I think is a very bad precedent to set. On the plus side, as much as Doc has erred - after talking to him, I do have to admit that he is a very likable person. And perhaps much of his unblock of Fladrif, and/or block of you were only a sub-conscious retaliatory or buddy actions. So if there's any enjoyment or satisfaction to be had for me personally here .. I've got to dip deep into the AGF well once more. But I do very much suspect that if not Doc, this will indeed be revisited by some other admin. who thinks that "hey, AC left the door open here - I may as well take advantage of it." Not always a good thing when folks get handed a blank check so to speak. Thanks for the tl;dr space on your talk PS. And best to you in moving forward. May all your edits be happy ones. — Ched :  ?  10:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry you wasted so much time, PS. Ched, I agree with you that AC turned a blind eye here and set a very bad precedent. Well said. Me, I wouldn't have put in all those nice extenuating remarks, but I guess that's mainly a difference of temperament: it's temperamentally natural for you (and not for me) to be nice. However… it troubles me, really, that you'd speak of the unblock of Fladrif + the block of PumpkinSky as perhaps "only sub-conscious retaliatory or buddy actions". "Only"? That's too extenuating. I think retaliatory and buddy actions are pretty much the worst actions an admin can do. They can really hurt people — as in, they hurt any non-buddies affected — and can often be peculiarly difficult to defend against. If an admin favors his mates, and goes after people he has a grudge against, and does these things "subconsciously" (as is no doubt usually the case), then the person isn't IMO self-aware enough to be a good fit for adminship, however sweet and likable they may be in other ways. We all see our own motives through rose-tinted glasses, no doubt (read this book and you'll never look at yourself in the same way again), but we really, really, need to strive to scrutinise our own motives, if this adminship lark is going to be any good at all. (Disclosure: I renounced my adminship in 2012 in anger at buddy actions by an admin who shall remain nameless here, but he simply made me not want to be in the same club any more.) Bishonen | talk 15:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• The outcome wasn't really a surprise. There has to be a showing that the community has tried but failed to effect a change before they will hear cases like this. As a whole, it is better that Arb is reluctant rather than eager to accept cases with no prior dispute resolution. As I've said before, if they decline a case, they don't have the authority to impose a mentor or RFC/U. You can still file an RFC/U yourself. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 11:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there were attempts.PumpkinSky talk 12:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbs like to see an RFC/U, it gives them a clear path to accept a case. I'm not saying it is wrong or right, I'm just saying that is how it is. At some point, you accept the bureaucracy here and have to comply. Of course, you know more about this than I do, so my stating the obvious is probably of little value except to tell you what you already know. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<placeholder for when I have more time to type out my thoughts - and yes, I have several of those pending at the moment}> link 1, link 2 — Ched :  ?  11:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dennis, Bish, an Ched. I'll be posting a comment on this wiki travesty to every arb's talk page later today. PumpkinSky talk 18:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My parting thoughts are at User_talk:SilkTork#Parting_thoughts_on_Jmh649_RFAR PumpkinSky talk 22:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BW--your protection of a page you were edit warring over is involved admin abuse and so is your blocking of me. Thanks for proving my points. PumpkinSky talk 00:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're full of it: I protected the page to prevent you from getting blocked ... but you decided to continue being pointy ... congratulations. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BWilkins, who cares if someone keeps reopening a discussion on the RfA talk page? Can you point to the consensus to close it? If not, then, why would you edit war over keeping it closed and then block the person who disagrees? What kind of operation is WP's administration anyway? Cla68 (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference between re-opening a thread, and dishonestly sliding your comments inside the archive brackets. if there had been consensus re-open ... then fine. As it was, it took 2 people to actually close it (humourously, to say the least). So, Cla68, you seem to have only read about 1/3 of the related edits ... perhaps you'll want to read the rest before sticking your foot in your mouth (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is dishonest? Again, who cares if someone wants to reopen a discussion that TWO editors wanted to close? Let it reopen and let the conversation die on its own. Or, is this the kind of thing that WP admins like to practice imposing their authority on? Cla68 (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know as well as I do that I don't play the "you will respect my authority" game ... save your misdirected anger for someone else (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm just saying that this was the wrong battle to pick. It's less consequences for you, because you're the admin and we editors have little recourse when we lose a battle like this that didn't need to be fought just because you thought it was something that needed your intervention. Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm just an editor - with a couple of extra buttons. Notice I didn't remove your post on that very same page because it's not dishonestly placed inside the brackets? There's nothing to intervene with there, IMHO. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NO BW, you're the one that's full of it. You're just pissed because I took your friend to RFAR. You were just waiting for an excuse to block me. Now stay off my talk page.PumpkinSky talk 00:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My friend? That's a laugh - I have lambasted that very admin for fucking up in the past, and will do it again. I don't have wikifriends, I have too many real life ones for that (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Feel free to change section title to whatever fits. At this point I'm just shaking my head though. "consensus in ArbCom" .. ummm .. huh? What? Too much here to address it all in the time I have. — Ched :  ?  00:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It was likely closed due to some drama over a completely different block than this one, SL93's. I rather liked the idea that it was closed, but wasn't married to it. This has been a bad day for that discussion, two blocks came from it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh for crying out loud ... I owe you an apology, PumpkinSky. I hatted the discussion because it had indeed led to a block, and someone then added a remark that was unfortunate in that light. While I slept, someone else came by and changed the hat to a close, which sends a different message. See the page history or e-mail me if you want further explanation of my action. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But...this is the second time in two weeks. What on earth is going on around here with these admins? Eventhough they were quickly overturned, the stigma of blocks cannot ever be erased. PumpkinSky talk 10:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "different message" my changing of Yngvadottir's close sent. All I did was exclude the header and uncollapse it so the discussion was at least easily accessible. I didn't feel archiving was particularly necessary in the first place, so I certainly don't understand why the whole discussion had to be hidden from sight.--Atlan (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was apparent that you and PumpkinSky hadn't seen the trainwreck that had just occurred over the title of the section. That was what my "enough" referred to, since someone had unfortunately revived the issue of the title. Yes, it's a valid topic and I am horrified by the suggestion that that is an "administrators' notice board", but ... the title had caused problems. Sigh. Someone who wants to continue discussion on the issue should probably restart it with a new section title. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC) (at work)[reply]

I had seen it, but the discussion itself was not a "trainwreck". It was actually a pretty civil discussion with well thought out responses. There was petty edit warring over "fewer" or "less" in the thread title, which had no effect on the discussion itself. You shut down a whole discussion, even removed it from sight AND archived the header so even though it showed up in the TOC it became unreachable, all because one editor flew off the handle over one word in the header and got himself blocked. If you think stifling ongoing discussion is the best way to reduce drama, you are sorely mistaken, as PumpkinSky's block has proven.--Atlan (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, either or any of you, feel free to ask me elsewhere for further details. However, since it was the title that was the problem ... again, opening a new thread on the same issue, under a new title, would be a good idea if anyone wants to discuss the topic further. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Resilient Barnstar
	The wikipedia community appreciates your concerns (you can tell you have a ton of people supporting you on this one, ArbCom did set a bad precedent, unlike George Washington). Anyway, keep pushing through. Don't rile Jmh649 up and you'll be fine. Keep it up. WorldTraveller101BreaksFixes 00:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am part of THAT community, support! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. PumpkinSky talk 17:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Want some carrots for your pony? Montanabw^(talk) 17:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Munch munch. PumpkinSky talk 18:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, PumpkinSky. In accordance with the growing consensus at the ANI thread, I've unblocked you, as Bwilkins appeared to be involved in the issue for which he blocked you. This is not particularly a reflection on whether or not a block of some kind was warranted per se (from my relatively brief overview, my purely personal opinion is that one was not warranted, but that's neither here nor there); more that it was wholly inappropriate for Bwilkins to be the one to unilaterally make that decision. Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But...this is the second time in two weeks. What on earth is going on around here with these admins? Eventhough they were quickly overturned, the stigma of blocks cannot ever be erased. PumpkinSky talk 10:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

related discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#New_proposal_for_admins PumpkinSky talk 11:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've closed that discussion and hoping it will stay closed. I agree with you that there are some admin issues that need addressing. That should be obvious by my choice to get involved in a number of cases. This proposal wasn't going to pass, and I think was fueled by frustration rather than logical deduction of a proper solution. I understand that, but I think that if we continue to hammer on people, we only encourage them to dig in instead of reflect, and if we are serious about finding solutions, hammering people won't work. As an individual admin, all I can do is point out mistakes and abuse when I see them, try to serve as an example by admitting my own mistakes, and try to be as fair with admin as I am with non-admin. I've been here since 2006 and it is my opinion that the community is raising their expectations for admin, which is a good thing, but it is a transition with bumps along the way. I think we need to reflect a bit and work towards comprehensive solutions that don't alienate admin, but instead encourage them to engage more and be slower to react. This takes time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin standards have gotten higher? Bullshit. That's all fine and dandy and easy for people to say until you've been the victim of three totally bogus blocks. So what happens to these three admins? Not a damn thing. They have all the rights and the victims get shit. PumpkinSky talk 13:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I'd ever pass muster as an admin. --evrik ^(talk) 13:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • [edit conflict] While the expectations for Admins have gotten higher, I honestly don't think the standard of conduct has improved much. Granted, I haven't been here since 2006 or whatever, but long tenure might also be part of the problem. Any long-term participant is going to be vested in policy, and OWN of policy is one of the biggest issues here. Watching conversations, I've seen Admins declare that change is needed but then turn around and demolish proposal after proposal with thin objections that seem to be grounded more in "but that means we'd have to change policy" than any real reasons. I also find it interesting that it seems to be considered ok to alienate the contributor base, but alienating Admins might be bad. Like it or not, being an Admin is a "big deal" for one reason: they can prevent someone from accessing their account. I'm not sure why that's so hard for some to understand. Many of the other Admin functions are indeed no big deal, but it's that access piece that changes the game. Funny in a way...I've seen message board moderators take their responsibilities more seriously than some of the Admins here. Apologies for taking up page space, PS. I'd also like to say that I really like your Montana work. Intothatdarkness 14:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. On Montana, I'll get back to that after people stop making unwarranted blocks and work on Burnham is done. PumpkinSky talk 17:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pumpkin, you need to read my actual words. I said "expectations". What the community will tolerate, what they expect from the behavior of admin. When I started in 06, an admin could get away with much more than they do now before the community revolts. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, nah, behavior was better back then. We must have been on different wikis ;-) PumpkinSky talk 17:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call it random violence more so than higher or lower standards. Admins can and do often get away with really bad behavior and committing that against other people (as long as they are clever about how they do it), and they also often get beat up for doing their job properly / impartially / very well. North8000 (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a thread on my talk involving you; [12] This is likely not the best time to bring it to your attention, but I will be archiving at month-end to go on a long planned summer break, and wanted you to be aware. Please do not continue repeating the allegation that I conspired with Moni3 to get you blocked-- anyone who knows Moni knows that *no one* can tell her what to do, that we both happened to comment does not mean there was a conspiracy, and I believe this has been pointed out to you before. Continuing to make that allegation after you've been informed ... well, you know the drill. I hope from the feedback on the winery DYK you also realize that using blog sources to cite text can result in factual errors: I would be encouraged if you would begin to work towards understanding and promoting the use of reliable sources at DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even recall the last time I brought up Moni and you so I don't know why you bring that up. Where's the diff of such a statement you claim I made? But as for that mess with her, if it comes up, I'm prepared. As for you, I haven't been following you around so please extend the same courtesy. It's not what you want to achieve, it's how you go about it. PumpkinSky talk 14:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec when adding PS): The diff is there. PS: It is my most sincere hope that you will receive the message here and there in the spirit intended, which is: to the extent that correct, neutral and constructive critique is devalued in any content review process, you associate with editors who attack correct critique rather than address it, and new editors learn bad editing practices in a process where we have the opportunity to teach them policy, guideline, and good editing practices early on, and those bad editing practices propogate (indeed, even reaching the FA level), all content contributions at Wikipedia become devalued. I have addressed Tony's approach in that thread, and hope you will work towards improving the substandard reviews that are common at DYK, so that we can all benefit from better articles. Again, I am sorry this message comes to you at what is a frustrating time for you, but I will be going on a long summer break soon. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I searched that entire diff and see Moni's not once, this one . Hope you have a nice vacation.PumpkinSky talk 15:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This one, on June 1. Thank you for the well wishes, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but I don't mention you there and I was NOT referring to you, but someone else, for which I have onwiki proof if ever needed. Sorry I wasn't clear about to whom I was referring. As to whom, why, where, etc. Sleeping dogs can stay still, this is not the time or place, and to reiterate, it's not you.PumpkinSky talk 15:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see! Well, that is a horse of a different color, and I apologize for the misunderstanding. Thank you for making me aware! Curiosity killed the cat ... but for the record, I still doubt that Moni3 conspired with anyone on anything ... seriously, no one tells Moni what to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ps again (ps meaning postscript not PumpkinSky): possibly your passionate defense of DYK is similar to what used to be my (overly) passionate defense of the FA process, which at times may have led both of us to excess. FA has been permanently damaged and the bronze star no longer means what it once did. Perhaps rebuilding of all content review processes can happen-- beginning at the DYK level, and propogating up. My passionate defense will be no more, because the FAC I knew no longer exists-- there is still hope for DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hmmm. I think I see what you are referring to. Can I ask when you go on vacation? If very soon, we can talk later. If not, we can keep talking.PumpkinSky talk 15:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be away from my computer the entire summer ... I will just be seriously and extremely busy with real life events through September, so I am trying to wrap things up here now so I can get on with events. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is really going to suffer in your absence..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VPP discussion — Ched :  ?  22:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I said "*Strong support get rid of this horrendous idea." PumpkinSky talk 23:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ach du liebe! Danke sehr! PumpkinSky talk 10:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella is nothing compared to your way from socking serial plagiarizer to founder of project Quality Article Improvement and author of the (so far) most successful TFA, Franz Kafka. Happy to share that way, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. PumpkinSky talk 11:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll going to be unavailable on WP for the next two weeks. We have made a lot of progress and I just wanted you to know that I haven't given up with the article. Thanks for all of your help! Ctatkinson (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll plug away at it as much as I can. Check in when you get back. PumpkinSky talk 20:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beelzebub's tube-nosed bat, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that three new species of tube-nosed bats from Southeast Asia were identified in 2011: the Beelzebub's, Ashy-gray (pictured), and Walston's? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ashy-gray tube-nosed bat, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that three new species of tube-nosed bats from Southeast Asia were identified in 2011: the Beelzebub's, Ashy-gray (pictured), and Walston's? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Walston's tube-nosed bat, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that three new species of tube-nosed bats from Southeast Asia were identified in 2011: the Beelzebub's, Ashy-gray (pictured), and Walston's? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your day today! 100 DYK and TFA, - I will let someone else say it more poetic ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's a good wiki day too huh? FYI you made a red link in your post. Thanks! That 99, 100, and 101 DYKs. PumpkinSky talk 09:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That "outstanding" link will turn blue, just wait, Amalthea's bot takes care of our history, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	My precious
	Congratulations on the Franz Kafka TFA and reaching 100 DYKs!! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danke sehr!!!PumpkinSky talk 09:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And today's Google Doodle is for Kafka's birthday, based on The Metamorphosis. What a Kafkaesque day, plus my three bat DYKs!!PumpkinSky talk 11:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

link to Guardian's Kafka google doodle article PumpkinSky talk 14:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oxbow (horse) now has five support votes! I'd give your Appy Pony yet more carrots for this, but he is in danger of laminitis if he eats too much! Montanabw^(talk) 18:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The 100 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		To PumpkinSky, for making a brilliant comeback and providing a plethora of articles on subjects ranging from Eagle Scouts and Medal of Honor winners to devil bats and dismal swamps. Congratulations on 100 DYKs! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Crisco! PumpkinSky talk 01:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[13] 768,586 hits

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Most viewed

WP:TOP25

YEE HAW PumpkinSky talk 01:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Like - Although if the Google Doodle had linked directly to Wikipedia as it had done in the past I bet you'd have hit a million. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OH WELL, it was still awesome! PumpkinSky talk 02:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Top 25 is updated every Sunday and is usually complete by Monday. Serendi^podous 05:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations! Bencherlite^Talk 10:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Congrats buddy!!! (and w00t woot .. a "real" editing window ... lol) (wonder if my own talk is like that) — Ched :  ?  10:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Like Sweet! I'd give you more carrots, but your pony might get too sassy! Montanabw^(talk) 17:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, that's awesome; congratulations, PumpkinSky! Acalamari 17:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look at the hits on Elsa Hosk. I dont think that has been added to DYKstats. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done PumpkinSky talk 00:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--BabbaQ (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Jodi Arias: Dirty Little Secret seems to not have been added to DYKstats. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do DYK anymore. Ask Bluemoonset. PumpkinSky talk 22:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have got something wrong: I know you're just following orders from WMF - Jorm is the one that gives the orders, or at least one of the top five or six in the entire hierarchy there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, he seems to have gotten my point. I'm tired of their total disregard for the volunteers and the way they shove crappily tested and unwanted software changes down our throats. PumpkinSky talk 20:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have to agree with you there. Most of them, including the depity CEO know me well enough, and when I was in the US last year, I got the metaphorical feeling they were diving under the tables when they saw me entering the room ;) When some some of the lower paid staff were told I was around and would like to meet them, my friends were told to F*** off. Nice from an employee, what? (it's all documented here on Wikipedia). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon is not "one of the top five or six in the entire hierarchy", he's a designer. He has *counts* 3 people between him and the ED, which is the same number of people as I do. We clearly have different recollections of Wikimania. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first misunderstanding is easily explicable. Kudpung has many, many years of experience - decades of experience in fact! - as a teacher, lecturer and so forth. (I hope I'm not giving too much away here, I'm pretty sure he mentioned it on-wiki at some point. At least once.) So much experience, that large proportions of what he has learned may be wisdom from ages past. In some of those ages, long hair could be a sign of power or prestige - see Samson for example. I'm sure you'll agree, Oliver, that if the ability to "give the orders" (as Kudpung so nicely puts it) were decided in such old-fashioned ways, then Jorm would be way ahead of you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw a myriad of posts so I thought I would join in and comment on a couple things. I think the current VisualEditor is garbage but it does have potential if the WMF would quite trying to shove it down our throats and make us live with a broken half assed and incomplete prototype. Flow on the other hand, I'm not so sure about. From what I know about it, it will only be on User talk pages and a couple others...maybe. So we will still need to know 2 different ways to post comments. Which is really really stupid and will not make things easier. Its also impossible to turn off, however it is possible to trick a couple ways if you don't want to use it. You could just create a subpage and redirect the talk page their and viola, the Flow has been blocked. You could also code a script to clone on of the talk pages that doesn't use flow and thereby bypass it that way. So to say that Flow cannot be turned off isn't entirely accurate. Its just a pain in the ass. With all that said, I do not think creating a bunch of pretty applications is going to fix our problem with a lack of editors. That is a cultural problem. Until we can make the culture more inviting by getting rid of the bad admins and editors, then people will continue to avoid the place. Oh and stop forcing shit like VE down our throats and breaking a bunch of stuff because the folks at WMF are too impatient to do proper testing of an application that everyone knows is broken. Kumioko (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to disagree with there. PumpkinSky talk 01:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some people might find this interesting. It's essential to follow the link back from the first word in the first post on the thread. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kumioko, have you considered the possibility that statements like "stop forcing shit...down our throats" is the sort of thing that contributes to the culture you're complaining about? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Okeyes, yep I considered that...not long after the WMF did it. They don't seem to be particularly interested in the literally hundreds of comments from people saying that deploying VE with all these problems is just plum stupid. I have been here for years and I have seen a lot of software releases here and in my real life job. I cannot point to one (other than maybe the release of timeline on Facebook) that was more universally hated than this release of VE. If you folks are trying to get people to like and use VE, then you are currently your own worst enemy. As it is, I'm not even doing any edits other than a few discussion comments until this VE mess is sorted out. I enabled it to do some test edits and commented to the WMF along with others that it wasn't ready. We were utterly ignored so I don't feel compelled to help the WMF clean up the mess that they created. Kumioko (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, IMHO, when people who don't normally cuss start cussing, I'd say that means it's time to sit up and pay attention because something is wrong when the nice people go radical! Montanabw^(talk) 00:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edit comment for the previous post is obscene and should result in a routine one-week block, each and every time it happens.  This is not that complicated.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Then I am entirely glad that you don't make the rules, considering that is nowhere near a blockable offense. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unscintillating, was that some sort of humour?!? I am not getting it, either way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have little doubt that it was not a joke. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I didn't think it was that complicated, in fact, hmmm, I even said, "This is not that complicated."  This creates a communication problem when people decide that a communication channel is part of a game, such that everything said is open to interpretation as less than sincere.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that's where you're wrong, Unscintillating, because CIVIL does not have a "no shit allowed" clause. So it would be complicated, as it would depend on community consensus as to what swearing/cussing, if any, should be blockable. Feel free to initiate such a discussion elsewhere, if you think toyful statements such as that are blockable offenses, and be prepared for a rush of opposition to your "uncomplicated" reading. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which nice people did you have in mind? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Unscintillating, you have singularly failed to recognize that Montana's edit summary demonstrates the power of language as it epitomizes the "us/them" dichotomy within hegemonic discourse.

As for "obscene", well, this hearty English idiom: "fuck off" occurs well over 5,000 times in user talkpages alone. Lord knows how many shits are lurking out there.

Which brings me nicely to Demiwit.. Gotta say, I was stunned when I discovered that the phrase: "Demiurge, you are a right cuntybaws" was absent from the search results, although I guess it won't be now! -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 02:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)-stalker: How dare you call me a "shit"!! AND I wasn't even lurking!! Curiously, your link leads us, via "Demiurge, you are a right cuneas" to this curious admission, on User talk:Sandstein's archive from two years ago: "Apologies - yes I am Cuneas (logged in now)." He's obviously a right cuneas. Shame. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have non idea what you are talking about.PumpkinSky talk 20:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere apologies, PumpkinSky. (btw, I've always thought you are a very good editor). "Wenn die Menschen nie dumme Sachen, nichts intelligente jemals zu erledigen." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meine Ohren brennen! —Cůntybaws (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"There are remarks that sow and remarks that reap." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin...Danke sehr, ich versuche aber es ist frustrierendPumpkinSky talk 21:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating's threat to block me is the second such I've received in a week, ever since I began to rant about the absurdity of the Eric Corbett block because he called someone an asshole. (OK, he called several people assholes, but due to accuracy, a 24 hour slap would have covered it). See my talk page for the other threat. I just passed my 50,000th edit on Wikipedia and have a 7 year history here with a crystal clear block record. Shall I now be blocked for use of the word "asshole" here too? I DARE anyone to block me, I seriously dare them! If people like me get threatened over something this petty, then WP is in more serious trouble than anyone realizes. User:Jack Merridew is proving a prophet in his use of Lord of the Flies imagery. Montanabw^(talk) 21:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't You Want Me, Monty"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dusti^*poke* 03:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Rfc#Request_comment_on_articles.2C_policies.2C_or_other_non-user_issues PumpkinSky talk 13:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to mention any names but the comments and actions from that admin are exactly the type of crap we could do without around here. Especially among the admin ranks. Shoving that statement back in your face knowing they won't do anything and showing that they are untouchable really pissed me off. I didn't think much of that admin already but that was downright dirty considering they knew as well as you did that action was inappropriate. Kumioko (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and arbcom and the community are gutless to do anything about it. This year's AC is the worst ever. PumpkinSky talk 20:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it says on my userpage, I am open to recall. But before you jump on that, PumpkinSky you may want to note that Kumioko has a history of attacking the WikiProject that I founded. --Rschen7754 20:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PumpkinSky, I think you're a good guy, and I even voted for you on your last RFA - and the funny thing is that I do think ArbCom should do more desysoppings. But your comments within the last hour just don't reflect the realities of fighting socks in 2013 and were a bit uninformed. --Rschen7754 20:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The realities of sock fighting (a pointless endeavor to begin with) means you can rm complaints about yourself? If you can't see the COI in that, I don't know what else to say. Thanks for voting for me, but I won't be running again. The community has made it quite clear I'll always be a persona non grata. PumpkinSky talk 20:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When they're posted by an obvious sock, yes - I've seen CUs even CU impersonation accounts. --Rschen7754 20:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My my, how low can the standards fall. PumpkinSky talk 20:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Rschen that's true not that it has any bearing on this discussion whatsoever. But that is one of the many reasons I don't think you should be an admin and why I don't trust you. To clarify, I do have a history of that because that project has severe article ownership issues. Runs off editors who try to make edits to US roads articles that aren't members of that project and generally acts like A-Holes to anyone who isn't a member of that project. And no, I don't really care if you trust me or think I should have access to the admin tools. I definitely don't trust you enough to have access as a Beauracrat or checkuser either for what that's worth. Kumioko (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's taken me a long time to decide how to deal with it. Serendi^podous 16:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it was that important to you, why didn't you help? We (both of us) were going through a bit of a crisis over that list this week, and extra input would have been appreciated. Serendi^podous 08:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not something I ever worked before and I was worried because there are many areas on wiki where people get upset if you work on "their" stuff. PumpkinSky talk 09:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd just wandered in and made changes without discussion, then yeah I would have been pissed off, but offering help on the talk page, particularly given that I had outlined the issues at hand pretty clearly, would have been helpful. Serendi^podous 10:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never saw the talk page. That's all news to me. PumpkinSky talk 11:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. — Ched :  ?  21:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My response was quite serious, and other people's response to my comment was serious: losing your bit due to a hissy fit should require an RFA to get it back. I'm not saying TCO falls in that category, but all the admins that resigned because of Eric Corbett's block certainly do. Please stop closing the section.—Kww(talk) 19:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TCO is trolling and you're just feeding him. Start another thread. Stop opening my close. PumpkinSky talk 19:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KWW - while that's an interesting thought, I doubt you'd find much support for it in consensus. The "WHY" of admins. resigning their bits boils down to motive - and it's a very poor choice to attempt to assign such things to any editor. There is also absolutely nothing in any policy to support your view. "Your" "hissy fit" is another editor's "principle". Something you may want to take into consideration. — Ched :  ?  20:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 12 days late and a dollar short: I didn't resign over Eric's block, which Kww could have known had he not already made up his mind. Note also that I didn't "lose" it, since "lose" suggests I wanted to keep it. Those are the kinds of erroneous statements one needs to make to build a case over hissy fits, or a case like the aborted one over Eric's unblock. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look over the article again? SL93 (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked someone to. I don't do DYK anymore. PumpkinSky talk 10:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve a beer for introducing me to the harv-errors script - it is unbelievably useful and I would never have picked up any of the mistakes I have without it. If we ever meet you can hold me to this :) Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. PumpkinSky talk 23:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, I got a one-month e-subscription to the Bozeman Chronicle that expires August 24, 2013. I'm basically done using it for what I wanted, so if you or anyone else you know would like to use it to do research (it comes with access to all their archives) on Bozeman- or Gallatin Valley-related articles, lemme know. The clock is ticking! - Tim1965 (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anything of use in the Montana article? PumpkinSky talk 10:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully expect so. I'm working on the topography section of the Montana article at the mo', and the Chron doesn't apply to that. But if I abandon that and start writing articles about NRHP places in Bozeman, there're tons of cites in the Chron available. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So instead, given Sergeant Reckless and the above beverages: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0_QSmxKJ8M Montanabw^(talk) 06:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HAHA. We knew you were a horseaholic, now, because you found this video, we know you're a alcoholic!! PumpkinSky talk 10:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

excellent work Sergeant Reckless!! Thank you so much!!Yen10k (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, and I'm not done! PumpkinSky talk 21:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

looking forward to seeing future edits by you!!Yen10k (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dale D. Myers, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Dale D. Myers (pictured) refused to accept the position of Deputy Administrator at NASA until president Ronald Reagan made a personal request? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dale D. Myers. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the article on Montana, it says the Rocky Mountain Front is in northwest Montana. The issue I'm coming up with is that, if you do a Google books search on the term "Rocky Mountain Front" you come up with that name applying to any eastern part of the Rocky Mountains from the Rio Grande to the Canadian border (e.g., "Colorado Rocky Mountain front" or "New Mexico Rocky Mountain Front"). It would be appropriate to say "Montana's Rocky Mountain Front", as the best citation I found (which defines the Front by its geology and ecosystems) does that. The problem is that the Wikipedia article "Rocky Mountain Front" is poorly writen and cited, and talks only in terms of Montana and not other states. I don't want to appear sneaky and alter (slightly) the RMF article to meet the needs of the Montana article, but that's what needs to happen I think. (Wikipedia doesn't cite iteself, but in practice GA reviewers compare articles for internal consistency.) Thoughts? - Tim1965 (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From where I sit (which both of you know, though I stay vague about it on-wiki), the "front" is from about Augusta or Choteau north into Canada. Basically where the mountains leading up to the divide start being a straight line of sorts as opposed to a jaggedly, ill-defined edge (like one sees by Bozeman or Whitehall, for example.) "Northwest" implies west of the divide altogether, as in the Kalispell area. So whatever you guys can find for a RS on that, now you have the reality for those of us who live here. Montanabw^(talk) 19:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While we unashamedly take every chance we can to plug Montana, the Rocky Mountain Front article is wrong. It's not just MT, but goes from Canada to Mexico. It's more complicated because the MT portion is on a diagonal, running from the south-central part to the north-west part of the state. I'd fix the MT article, then throw enough in the Front article to (sadly) fix it. PumpkinSky talk 21:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific! A little reality check never hurts me. (ha!) - Tim1965 (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reality? What's that?? Montanabw^(talk) 18:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just went off my meds. Oh no, reality again! Back to the pills and Duck Dynasty reruns we go. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friend. I want to show you this removed edit of mine and think you should add it to your complaint of Wilkins. Also note in the link I had given that the Admins didn't even put a fraction of thought into punishing him. Good luck, let's hope Wikipedia gets one less corrupt Admin. TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You posted in the arb area, just post in a "statement" area. The "rot in hell" thread is already in my RFAR. PumpkinSky talk 00:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 August 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sergeant Reckless, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a Korean war horse named Sergeant Reckless (pictured) was awarded two Purple Hearts and promoted to Staff Sergeant of the United States Marine Corps in 1959? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sergeant Reckless. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Reckless - Fearless, go for GA! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might be able to push it to MilHist A-Class also. Intothatdarkness 19:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Let's look at that after GA. PumpkinSky talk 19:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. They might want some expansion around the 5th Marines, but that's not a huge deal. Intothatdarkness 19:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments have been posted on the Burnham FAC. I'm working on the first bullet now. Ctatkinson (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed all of the bullets, except for number 2: Significant WP:MOS cleanup needed in the article: hyphens/dashes, repeated links, etc. This comment is vague, so I'll need more time to see what I can do. If you have any thoughts on this, let me know. Thanks. Ctatkinson (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a number of edits that address the MOS. Hopefully someone will drop by the FAC this weekend and express support for the article. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, PS. It's pointless to link dynamically to an ANI thread that has already been archived, or soon will be. You probably know this, but you don't seem to remember it all the time. Please use permanent section links, either by linking to an archive, or by using the "permanent link" tool in each page's toolbox. Example: this already-dead link that you used needs to be either this or this. Hope this helps. It took me quite a while to locate just those two; I worry the arbs won't go to the trouble, but simply disregard the dead links. P.S. Oh well, looking closer, they seem to be about to decline it anyway, as has become standard with requests against admins. :-( Bishonen | talk 20:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Yea, I know. Thanks. It was live at the time I first found it. Will update. Wish we could get some arbs that would do what's needed doing. PumpkinSky talk 20:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PumpkinSky, I probably can't change your mind, but if you do decide to attempt DR, you can know that I will not be circling any wagons in an "admin defend admin" way. (I do tend to favour leniency in cases of apologetic admins who admit they've messed up, but that is not at all what I'm seeing here.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I see no reason to waste more of my time. Someone else can file it. Wiki, including AC, have truly become completely dysfunctional. PumpkinSky talk 12:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No dispute from me on that one. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding. Closed society at its finest. Intothatdarkness 14:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you wrote this. [14]

Please note that I have been away from WP since 16 July (see [[15]]). I have been doing fieldwork in a remote area of Japan. I have not been failing to participate from anything. If you had checked my contributions you would have realised this.

Can you please correct your assertion as soon as possible? You might also consider apologising. Thank you. --Kleinzach 01:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not editing doesn't mean you're not able to edit. But I do apologize. You may want to put an "on travel" notice on your page next time. I'll just remove it as I'm sick of the total dysfunction on wiki.PumpkinSky talk 01:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Kleinzach 06:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We really need your opinion on which of these photos would make the best Infobox portrait for the Rick Remender article. Could you please offer your opinion in that discussion? The most recent subsection of that discussion is here, so you can just chime in there if you don't want to read the whole thread. I really appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious. What made you think of me in regards to this? PumpkinSky talk 20:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notice that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again AC proves it's lost its compass. PumpkinSky talk 22:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not try an RfC and see what happens? Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And waste more of my time for a meaningless result? Get real. See "Please use permanent links at RFAR" thread above.PumpkinSky talk 23:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I co-sponsored an RfC with two other editors on an admin about five years ago and it did work to correct the behavior in question. Cla68 (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki of 5 years ago is not the wiki of today. Today is total dysfunction. PumpkinSky talk 00:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost done citing all the claims in the article on Montana that deals with "Rivers, lakes, and reservoirs". Is there anything to add there before I finish? (When I finish this section, the entire "Topography" section will now be fully cited as well. Then it's on to "Flora and Fauna"!) - Tim1965 (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. In Montana, "Lakes and reservoirs" has a ref in the middle but not end. The end should probably have one. When I'm done with my current wiki project, I can get back to the MT article.PumpkinSky talk 20:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria continues to be the only one to comment on the Burnham FAC. I have speedily commented and addressed her concerns, but so far she has only toughened her resolve to oppose the article. I think most editors have stayed away from the comments since they don't want yet another fight. I completely agree that WP is not the enjoyable place it was several years ago. Once form replaced substance, it seems that a lot of good WP editors simply dropped out and there are a lot fewer of the people like you who still care enough to fight for the substance.

Let me know if you have any ideas on how to make headway through this FAC. Thanks. Ctatkinson (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While a few of her points are excessive, most are valid, like whether ages have hyphens after them. FAC is extremely nitpicky in all regards now, but she should not have opposed right off the bat. Lack of reviewers is a problem all over wiki: FAC, GAC, DYK, etc. Many things fail simply for lack of reviewers, not fair, just the way it is now with all the editors being driven off. I suggest you keep fixing her concerns and stay cool. It'll be that much less for others to gripe about. You may have to re list it again, if so, you can list me as a conom, like I was on the first time a few years ago. If this one fails, list it at PR before relisting at FAC. I was thrilled to see Patton listed at FAC but it, and many others, have few reviewers. Sad all around. PumpkinSky talk 18:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can always count on you for excellent guidence. I'll keep plugging away at any further nitpicky issues that may come up. I somehow missed that Patton was also listed as FAC -- d'oh!. I'll see what I can do to be of help. Ctatkinson (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I all but dared Nikki to review my FAC for Oxbow (horse) when we were in the middle of a dispute over something else entirely. She picked it half to death, but her nitpicks were legitimate and after I fixed everything she threw at me, she ultimately supported. You can look at its FAC to compare, Ctatinson. If you'd like to drop me a line with a link to the article you have up at FAC, I'd be glad to pop over and take a look. Montanabw^(talk) 20:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A second new Montana article: Michael P. Malone! Ugh, for a guy as well-known as he was, there was precious little out there that wasn't hagiography. I've got a request in to MSU to see if they will release a photo of Malone under CC-BY-SA 3.0 to WikiCommons. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. What do you mean "second"? PumpkinSky talk 21:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the Geoff Gamble article? Intothatdarkness 21:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I've listed them at WP:Montana. MTBW or ITD....can you think of double DYK hook for them and nom them?PumpkinSky talk 21:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Not a fan of Geoff Gamble. You're on your own with him, wouldn't want a double DYK with the two of them in the same sentence. Malone was the more respected one. Hagiography kind of deserved, though he got into some trouble in his lifetime for bluntness and telling it like it is. How about, DYK that...historian and former MSU President Michael P. Malone was one of the 100 most influential Montanans of the 20th century and wrote the "definitive history of the state" ? Montanabw^(talk) 22:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur on both points. Malone's got the "legs" to carry a legit nom. Gamble...agree on the meh. Intothatdarkness 22:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you want a three-fer? I just got William Tietz up, too. - Tim1965 (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once of the comments from Montanabw on the Burnham FAC is that we expand the lead paragraph. I have to agree. He thinks we should try for three or four solid paragraphs. I've drafted a new lead in my sandbox and I'd like to get your comments as a co-author of the article. Since it's only in draft, I haven't done much of anything about references or wikilinks. Feel free to edit the text, move things around, add and delete, whatever you think is appropriate. Thanks for you help! Ctatkinson (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very brave to take her back to FAC. Good luck. Eric Corbett 00:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you much, Eric. PumpkinSky talk 00:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm likely going to support this once I've a good look through, but "She was ordered held 'to be brought to a future trial', but no record of another trial exists, so it is possible the charge was dismissed at some point" isn't right. "Ordered held"? Thought I'd mention it here rather than clutter the review. Eric Corbett 14:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your input and eventual support would be greatly appreciated and mean a lot to me. We'll take care of that issue you mention. PumpkinSky talk 14:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer touch FAC which IMO has become a discredited process based on who can bully opposers the loudest* so won't comment at the review, but a quick comment—the lead says Sherwood was "the only person convicted of witchcraft in Virginia", but a little way into the article it talks about someone else being "sentenced to 10 stripes and banishment from the county" for witchcraft. They can't both be true. – iridescent 15:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Unless you really think that the recently-promoted Jesus is "engaging, even brilliant", "neglects no major facts or details" and includes "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature".

Perhaps "last person known to be convicted …"?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, google "ordered held", it's fairly common in American English to mean that a judge has ordered that someone be incarcerated (usually in the pretrial sense).--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many things are common in American English, including the ridiculous " I could care less". But "ordered held" is simply wrong. Full stop. Eric Corbett 16:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any event it has been changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It ought to have been changed without any argument. Eric Corbett 18:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, tone down the testosterone all around, please, everyone. Sometimes for something to be changed, it is helpful to have a logical explanation given. Sometimes a compromise is useful. Now, next time you have one of these spats, please ask Montanabw to be mama bear and settle this by knocking all your heads together. (Sheesh, boys...) Montanabw^(talk) 18:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

changed to "ordered to be detained" to be precise. Is that acceptable? PumpkinSky talk 19:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and "last person known to be convicted". Is that acceptable? PumpkinSky talk 19:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• so she was commanded by the court to be detained? — Ched :  ?  20:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC) (btw - I commend you for having the courage and fortitude to return to your waterloo and attempt to put things right. A true sign of maturity - I am impressed.) — Ched :  ?  20:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Ched. PumpkinSky talk 14:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due to an unforeseen family emergency PumpkinSky will be offline for the foreseeable future. He extends his best wishes to all, as I'm sure we all extend our best wishes and prayers to them. — Ched :  ?  21:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking of you with wishes and prayers, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hugs and good thoughts for you and your family.(olive (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

My best wishes to you and your family. I hope everything will be ok. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that everything will be okay, too. Thanks for keeping us informed, Ched. Acalamari (from Bellatrix Kerrigan) 23:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking of you and your family. Hope everything's okay. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prayers for you and your family, hope everything will be OK. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Best wishes, PSKY. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to all for the concern. I truly appreciate it. Look at this photo File:Fried_Laptop.jpeg of my wife's laptop, consider that I was given oxygen by the firemen, no one else was home, and damage to the table the laptop was on, and you get the idea. And get this, we were going to retire that laptop today and I'd copied her data from it to the new one 30 minutes before the fire. This is what happens when Wiki debates get too heated! hahah. Puts it all in perspective. Family is the most important thing. Wiki debates are just power struggles. For just within the wiki world, content is what is important. PumpkinSky talk 13:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, glad you are OK and the only injury was to the kitchen table. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the laptop;-) It's literally toast. I guess it knew we were retiring it and it wasn't doing down without a fight. PumpkinSky talk 14:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that laptop was homicidal...or something. I can see it now: "Homicidal laptop tries to take out it's owner to prevent an early retirement, tonight at 11". It would sound better if Don LaFontaine were still around to say it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• HOLY SHIT. Yeah, glad you're okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to hear that you are ok and everyone is well. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• {{Welcome Back}}? Glad all is well buddy. — Ched :  ?  17:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Homicidal laptop": It may yet be a sign of AI. "Planet of the laptops" may be next. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen King should write a book about it, which should be made into a movie. PumpkinSky talk 00:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he specialises in this type of stories featuring technology gone bad. Too bad we don't have his cachet to write our own. That's life I guess. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A book, then a hit TV show, then a movie. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd have pegged Michael Crichton for it, actually. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Baked PumpkinSky for trialling the very latest Wikipedia:VisualEditor hidden feature! Seems it works (- I was only trying to send you "edit thank", honest.) But very glad you are OK. Handy hint for next time: [16] Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Fried Laptop Barnstar
		In honor of working so hard on Wikipedia and its projects that your laptop catches fire, putting your life at risk and threatening to burn down your home. - Tim1965 (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's hilarious!!!! PumpkinSky talk 23:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just can't believe what happened to you. And smoke inhalation is not fun! This could have been so horrible, and yet everything seems to have turned out OK. Wow! - Tim1965 (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't have to go to the hospital and the table has some permanent damage, but yea, it could have been way worse. I keep wondering, "What if no one had been home when this happened?" PumpkinSky talk 01:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similar problem, although nothing like as bad, when I was using my lap top a few weeks ago; the top became so hot I couldn't touch it and I had to whip the battery out. I wonder how common this battery fault is? Eric Corbett 01:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't give a percentage but it's certainly not an unheard of problem with lithium-ion batteries. See Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems. If your laptop gets that hot often, I suggest getting a new laptop. Also, don't leave the laptop running when not in use. Turn it off or at least put it in sleep mode. PumpkinSky talk 01:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've dumped the battery, only use it on mains now. Eric Corbett 02:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only problem with that is if the power goes out all your work gets zapped. Not to mention it's not good for the hardware to turn off abruptly. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the UK, we don't have sudden power outages here. Eric Corbett 02:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply awesome. I wonder why the power reliability is so high in the UK. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because we're not a third-world country? And we don't tend to have extreme weather events? Eric Corbett 02:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, extreme weather is a good reason for an outage. As far as third-world, big power outages have been observed in the US repeatedly, so it isn't only a third-world privilege. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

America has its third world elements, we don't like none of them guvmint reggulashins...! Glad you are OK Psky! And what a barnstar! Montanabw^(talk) 15:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Third-world made in the USA. Mighty strange combination but perhaps a sign of (the times) deregulation. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just spend almost a week in Canada. I'm getting more convinced that the USA needs to get with the rest of the world. I mean, we don't even do a good job of recycling plastic bottles!. Montanabw^(talk) 19:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Canada is an interesting example of unexpectedly different historical evolution to that of the US. But as far as laptop safety, I don't think Canada's electrical power network is any more reliable than that of the US during inclement weather. The North American weather is quite active, not to mention your friendly neighbourhood snowstorms which could easily zap your local Hydro and with that your laptop, if not on backup battery power. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Just heard about this. Good to hear that the damage was thankfully less bad than it could have been and that everybody is okay. Hope the cleanup isn't taking too much out of you (and your pockets!). AGK [•] 15:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Girl Scouts of the USA for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I may or may not get to it. PumpkinSky talk 18:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sergeant Reckless you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Dana boomer -- Dana boomer (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to drop the matter (as I said earlier), but if you want to continue the discussion (about my actions) you are welcome to do so at my talk page. I can then reply there (when I get time). Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you'd like to drop it. I've made my point, so ok. PumpkinSky talk 23:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The crux here was all the mess from last year. It used to be possible to at least sometimes effect meaningful change and now you can't get squat done. Then there's the whole Raul FA Fiefdom mess..."

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Can you shorthand it for me? Thanks, PumpkinSky. You can post on my Talk Page if you'd like. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki has been highly dysfunctional and incapable of meaningful change since about 2007. Last year there was a mess with arbcom. I can't remember it all but it involved a leaked email. That's when AC really nosedived downhill. User:Raul654 (just "raul" usually) called himself the FA Director. He held the job for about 10 years. More accurately he was the FA Dictator. His word was law and you didn't question him. Even more appalling is that many people still kiss his pants cuffs. He did very little since Spring or so 2012 and hasn't made a single edit since Feb 2013 and many people still can't let go of him. For just a a tiny taste see at least three threads currently at WT:FAC and Wikipedia:AN#Two_connected_ones_at_Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates. Sickening. PumpkinSky talk 00:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is so odd, I sent several messages to different editors because Raul654 was listed as the Director of a project I was curious about (I guess it was FAs but I thought it was more than one project) and, as you say, he hadn't edited since Feb. 2013. I didn't get any replies to my messages to the other people on the team. I had no idea of the backstory. Thanks for filling me in. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with something User:Ched recently said, posted with his permission: "Jimbo abandoned all concept of being in touch with the project - just collects his checks for speaking. No leadership left at all. So the arbs basically quit trying to "arbitrate" and began playing "crat" ... meaning that they try to gauge consensus and pick the side they think will give them the most support in the next election. If an admin. is a "super-user" .. then an arb is a "super-DUPER-user". I think the final breaking point here as far as leadership happened last fall. Shortly before the 2012 election debacle there was a massive "arbcom email leak". Then, prior to the elections Jclemens posted in the arb mailing list about Malleus and his belief that he (MF) should be banned for civility issues. (and I will note that Jclemens would likely have supported desysop of Doc James, Bwilkins, and perhaps even Nikki; ... he was big on "admins having to adhere to a higher standard"). After Jclemens posted his "personal" thoughts in the "official" arb mailing list .. Elen of the Roads took it public. Many (of the arbs) thought it was a breech of trust and privacy to air what's said in the "list" ... NEITHER of them was re-elected ... Much like the watergate era (USA politics), all trust was lost in the body of arbcom. So NOWWWWW ... it's just a matter of maintaining the position of faux-power. I do think there are a few arbs that do the best they can (Worm, NYB, Carcharoth) - but the committee has gotten so large and diverse that there is no trust amongst themselves, and no unity in how to treat requests. Arbcom has become the next ANI .. first come - first serve. Nobody is gonna rock the boat .. and the more dysfunctional they become, the more people voice that concern. And it becomes a CYA issue and protect thine own self." PumpkinSky talk 00:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only question I have about this (other than the details that are buried in archives somewhere) is that it doesn't sound like being an Arbitrator is very rewarding. They get a lot of abuse from editors and not a whole lot of respect especially considering the amount of work involved. They might be "super-DUPER-users" but I don't know why anyone would plot and scheme to hold on to a job where they are continually criticized.

As an outsider, I really wonder how many editors follow the politics of the Wikipedia hierarchy and even bothered to vote in elections. I'm not saying that the subject isn't important for the future of Wikipedia, just that the people who are aware of all of this drama probably are in the low thousands. They are clearly the editors and Admins who are most invested in WP but I doubt the average editor even knows that ARBCOM exists.

But I am grateful for you taking the time and space to explain the situation to me. Now that I'm one of those editors who actively watches the noticeboards, it's interesting to hear how things have have changed over time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used to be an arb. I'm one of the few, maybe only, who have seen wiki personally at both ends. Ched has a great post on that somewhere. PumpkinSky talk 01:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors don't follow the politics, which is what the various power blocs count on. I've always made it a practice to take the measure of the governance of any online activity I get involved with, so I've hovered around the fringes of things watching how it works. Wikipedia has a concentration of people (the shadow bureaucracies) who think they OWN policy and will stubbornly resist any attempt to change it (unless they happen to be the ones bringing forward the change...I could point you to one Admin who was until recently strongly opposed to reforming parts of it until that particular Admin came up with a 'new' idea). Jimbo's "leadership" also created a mentality where conformity and cheerleading those in power was strongly encouraged. If wiki's turned into anything it's a closed society with enemies of the state and its own versions of the little red (or green) book. Intothatdarkness 13:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well said and spot on. PumpkinSky talk 20:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page I have a little quote box (from another user's words of wisdom) that says: "[The] readers will not be privy to the massive undercurrents of dross that underpins WP. They require well written, well sourced, encyclopaedic material that can inform, enlighten and satisfy their interest." There are a lot of "drahmahz" scooting around on WP, many of them really quite lame (or WP:LAME). And with everything in print form, nothing is forgotten and the collective memory of things that are inaccurate is disturbingly long... we are a dysfunctional anarchy here. Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. PumpkinSky talk 21:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a former casual editor who has spent the last month immersing herself in all things Wikipedia, there is definitely a lot that is left out of the article on the history of Wikipedia. A few things that seem apparent to a newcomer:

1. There is actually a relatively small group of individuals (maybe 3,000-5,000?) who care about WP politics and follow the twists & turns and changing fortunes of different Editors, Admins and Policies.
2. The vast majority of editors are casual, fixing typos or working on one niche topic area, keeping to themselves and couldn't tell you what ARBCOM or AN/I are.
3. But the people who do care about WP as an organization, care a lot and have long memories.
4. And there are a certain number of people who intensely dislike WP (either they became disillusioned or because of bad personal experience) but who, nevertheless, still frequent the site and weigh in on issues that particularly bother them or involve individuals they like or dislike.
5. The learning curve at WP is sharp and newbies have to quickly grasp quite a large number of policies and practices if they want to do more than correct typos or add a reference.
6. Some Admins have a low tolerance for bumbling newbies and I've seen new Editors who were "disruptive" get an indefinite ban without even an official warning when all they were really guilty of is not becoming competent quickly enough.

Sorry for the monologue. Just a few observations from a recent outsider. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty accurate too. PumpkinSky talk 22:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, everything I wrote is probably all very obvious to the long-timers. But for people who look at Wikipedia as an online reference tool (which is almost everyone), I'm sure the intensity of the politics and drama here is a surprise. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that's pretty accurate except maybe point one. I think its only a couple hundred who are interested in the politics of the site not 3-5000. I also think there are a lot that pretend to be and don't really care about the project, just the perception of power they have and how it makes the feel important. Kumioko (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, the people who make wiki go around is probably no more than 400-500 users. PumpkinSky talk 01:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put it a little higher than that, maybe two or three times that number, but a lot less than the headline numbers would suggest. Eric Corbett 02:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are only about 1400 admins, most of which stay far away from the drama boards and a fair number of us lowly non admins that meddle in them but I don't care about WikiPolitics. I just don't trust some of the others and feel I need to keep on top of things so they won't do something self serving and not in the interest of the project. Not that they listen to me mind you, but at least I feel like I tried. Kumioko (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that once you get sucked into the "drahmahz" it can eat your life. Montanabw^(talk) 18:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I stick to the edges. Work on an article here or there, and that's about it. I had hoped to get more involved, but what I've seen and learned has convinced me that it's not worth it. Intothatdarkness 18:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never was good at ignoring problems but at the same time a lot of the drama exists for no good reason. Just some people want to make every thing more complicted than it needs to be. Unfortunately we need admins and editors who are willing to roll their sleeves up and get their hands dirty but if you do that as an editor you'll piss off too many people to get the tools and the vaste majority of paople being promoted to admins the last couple years are ultra conservative and won't get involved in the turbulant areas. Kumioko (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you spend just a week or two checking out AN/I, you'll see a small group of users who are bringing charges or being accused of charges, the same dozen names, repeatedly. So some editors file a AN/I at the slightest disagreement, then there are counterclaims, that's where most of the drama comes from. If you try to post a comment you'll find that it's really just two people arguing with each other in public over problems that usually seem resolvable to me if people just weren't so inflexible and didn't hold grudges. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There might be 1400 Admins but there is a page on WP somewhere that says how many are "active" (some editing activity over the past 3 months) and I think the number of active Admins is around 680. I'll try to find the page. I remember being surprised and thinking, "That's not enough Admins!" But the RfA process is so intrusive, I'm not sure how many people want to go through it and would pass. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that was easy. It's Wikipedia:List of administrators and there 789 inactive Admins, 649 active Admins for a total of 1,438 total Admins (as of 8/28/13). Activity is defined as 30 or more edits during the last two months. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The process has grown intrusive for a number of reasons. Some of them revolve around old grudges and personal animosities, but I think a larger factor (for those of us who hang at the edges, at least) is the simple fact that Adminship is "for life" for all practical purposes. There is no simple way to de-op someone, and that's enough to make many cautious about who they vote for. If I had more confidence in Wikipedia's ability to remove people who prove ill-suited for adminship, I'd vote yes more frequently. Sadly, everything I've seen leaves me with almost no confidence in the "system's" ability to correct or remove those who are ill-suited for a position of authority. Intothatdarkness 19:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, here's another interesting stat: Looking at the List of Admins there are only 4 who have accounts that were created after 2010. So, most Admins have been around WP a while. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Intothat? Admins are automatically desyop if they are inactive for a year. And it seems like every time I read an ARBCOM ruling, some Admin is getting their tools taken away. It might take quite a while for bad conduct to lead to a desyop but it happens. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, really. Inactive desysop doesn't really count for this sort of thing. If you look back at the history of some of the admins who've lost the tools lately, they've often had issues ongoing for years. That's a system that can easily be viewed as unresponsive, especially when one considers that the body charged with removing the bit is composed totally of admins. I'm sure others here can speak more to abusive Admins than I, but a system that's seen as unresponsive (at best) or hostile (which happens) to cases of admin abuse or misconduct will normally lead to the sort of thing you see at RfA. I'm not suggesting that personal animosity plays no role there, but that's often held up as the ONLY reason RfA can be trying. That's too simple a view. Intothatdarkness 20:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The 4 number is off. There were actually about 50 promoted between 2012 and this month. 52 in 2011. Number are according to Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship. Also you are both partly correct. They do remove the tools from inactive admins but aside from that and voluntarily giving them up the admin virtually has to murder someone to have the tools removed. Only 3 or 4 in the last year and there were a lot more that should have the tools removed. Your right though Liz it does happen, but its so hard that massive damage occurs before it happens. Kumioko (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Intothat, do you think many people would vote for a nonAdmin for ARBCOM? I looked at the last election and the vote totals were pretty modest. Maybe there is a bias to have Admins on ARBCOM. Maybe some regular editors should run in December. ;-)

Kumioko, my numbers (aside from Active/Inactive Admins numbers) were just guesstimates and I've only been interested in learning about WP's moving parts since July. So, I'm still an outsider. I defer to more experienced editors for a more accurate estimate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is more will admins vote for non-admins on ArbCom. Admins by nature tend to be more involved on the political side. Intothatdarkness 20:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem your doing fine. Just thought you would be interested to know. There is no requirement for Arbcom to be all admins and in fact one editor was voted in before they became an admin (Bahamut) but I think he is the only one. The problem is the Arbcom members have access to some tools that require you to be an admin to get, even then in addition you have to give your reql identify and verification to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). So many do not want to do it and those that would, probably wouldn't get voted in. Plus its not a fun job and the Arbcom has lost their way anyway. These days the Arbcom pretty much like a cross between the 2 old guys from the Muppets and the Queen of England. Lots of show and talk, very little action. Kumioko (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kumioko. As I said here (or on another Talk Page), being an Arbitrator appears to be a thankless job. The most complimentary comment I've read about an Arbitrator is "he isn't that bad". That was the highest praise, it's mainly a stream of criticism about individuals and the group as a whole. Who'd want to put up with that? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should also probably calrify that I have met several of them and I think very highly of most of them as editors and as individuals. But I think the Arbcom process is failing along with the RFA and several others. Kumioko (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for lots of show and talk, very little action, looking at ARBCOM decisions from recent years, they are criticized for being too lenient and they are criticized for being too tough. There'd be no seat for Goldilocks on ARBCOM because it's never "just right". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some truth to that but here is something else to consider. Once the Arbcom accepts a user case, that user may as well stop editing and walk away because they won't accept a case unless they feel the user is guilty. So then they just waste 2 months of debate to ban them. Another point is the Arbitration enforcement board that's largely run by one editor who is allowed unlimited discretion and power over it. Any questions are squashed or ignored. Then you have the cases (which are the majority) where it seems that Arbcom makes a decision in such away that it makes it look like they are trying to make the point that if cases are brought to them they are going to rule in such a way that neither side wins. (ie. Your all topic banned and no one can edit the article). These are just examples but the process is really....well...arbitrary. Whether we call them to lenient or too harsh is irrelevant if the process is fair and it works, which it isn't and doesn't. Many of the decisions aren't even from policy its just their opinions or interpretations of policies that frequently don't even apply. Kumioko (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Once the Arbcom accepts a user case, that user may as well stop editing and walk away because they won't accept a case unless they feel the user is guilty." Quite, to which I'd add that the usual "you may appeal this ban after one year" is outrageously misleading given that appeals are routinely turned down. Eric Corbett 02:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almost as stupid as saying you can appeal to Jimbo. Kumioko (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo doesn't appeal to me (except for money of course), so no reason why I should appeal to him. Eric Corbett 02:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Harry S. Truman (estimated annual readership: 1,144,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why thanks! Good idea too! PumpkinSky talk 09:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great award - and well deserved! Kafka had a million in two days, remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been slow in following up on this, but Gerda's quite right--even without the main page appearance, Kafka clocks in at a bit over a million. Which means I owe you a second one of these:

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Franz Kafka (estimated annual readership: 1,002,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not many Wikipedians have two of these--well done! That's a heck of a lot of people your work is serving. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, thanks! That's cool. Very nice of you. PumpkinSky talk 01:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, as I doubt you were following. The image passed FPC, so the page will show in TFP in... I'd say 18 months. Just in case the views at DYK weren't enough :D — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, congrats! That's cool. PumpkinSky talk 17:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely hoping for some decent hits. We put quite a bit into that article indeed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sergeant Reckless you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sergeant Reckless for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Dana boomer -- Dana boomer (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and making her article better! PumpkinSky talk 21:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and help at the Joseph Smith FAC page. I especially liked the cool script you showed us - I'll use that from now on in my Wikisurfing.

In regards to the Joseph Smith article, I've fixed what I can from your comments. (I put strikethroughs on your comments about issues that I considered completely resolved - I hope you don't mind.) Would you take a few minutes to reevaluate the article and weigh in again at the FAC again?

Thanks very much, Trevdna (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally answered your question, but as other people might be interested in the answer, I put the figures for March–May at the TFAR talk page. For those three months, it was roughly 50:50 between TFAR nominations and my "free picks". If time and / or my failing memory permits, I'll try to get/keep figures for the whole year. Bencherlite^Talk 23:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, cool. Thanks. PumpkinSky talk 23:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the current ArbCom display, I shall be absent from the fray unless some degree of commonsense returns to this realm. Ave atque vale. Collect (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry to hear that. I do agree that the place is now a completely and totally dysfunctional anarchy. PumpkinSky talk 15:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WOOF WOOF — Puppy of Dog The Teddy Bear • ^WOOF • 18:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Puppy. wink wink. PumpkinSky talk 20:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and dance today to (Symphony No. 8 (Dvořák), see below) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I be the first (of hopefully many) to congratulate you on bringing the Grace Sherwood article to Featured Article status. Great work! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support! Great work on the infamous article. I remember well how I watched with horror after its first appearance in November 2010 how Wikipedia treats her editors (making me think of Witch trials in the early modern period). I take this as a welcome signal of hope for a change. You know ... that when rehearsing Dvořák's Eighth Symphony, conductor Rafael Kubelík said: "Gentlemen, in Bohemia the trumpets never call to battle – they always call to the dance!"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Like — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• WOW. I just learned of this. YEA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm overwhelmed. I'm sure you all understand why. Thank you so much everyone. PumpkinSky talk 09:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Well done! Montanabw^(talk) 22:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations for bringing this article up to FA status! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, I think this is an important milestone and a great achievement. Neutralhomer, I think it unlikely you are the first to give such congratulations, but that's increasingly in the past now! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some people obviously find it easier to forgive than I do, which to be honest isn't difficult, as I never forgive. I bear no ill will towards Rlevse, but I do towards those who accused me of leading him into a trap by not checking the sources during my copyedit of the earlier article. Water under the bridge now for some, but not for me. Eric Corbett 19:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many unfortunate and unwarranted claims were made beginning Oct 31, 2010. People accusing you of leading Rlevse into a trap is just one of the many ridiculous ones. Don't even get me started on the rest. I'm still suffering from the fallout of that sordid mess and always will as wiki never forgives and never forgets. Some users have moved on but "the community" as a whole won't. @Demi and Liz, thank you for your supportive comments. PumpkinSky talk 20:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That part needs some serious reform. It's one thing to dislike recidivism, it's another to never forgive and never offer redemption. As for me, I don't buy the crap that if you don't forget you haven't forgiven - I don't ever forget (much, anyway, age crap notwithstanding, and where the hell are my car keys, anyway?) but sometimes, when enough time has gone by and I've added more data to a situation, I occasionally forgive. Maybe. Wiki needs to do at least that well, and if they could choose to purge certain records from people's "file", it might not be a bad thing. Montanabw^(talk) 21:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, PumpkinSky. That took courage. Choess (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do appreciate it. I wouldn't have done it without Wehwalt helping so much. After all that's happened to me in the last 3 years, I'm not afraid of anything nor anyone on wiki. PumpkinSky talk 00:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see this as well - but you should always fear "'Zilla"s .. :-D — ChedZILLA 08:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for your suggestions and participation in the FAC for Blackwater fire of 1937...it is now a Featured Article. MONGO 15:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

congrats! and you're welcome. PumpkinSky talk 16:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BBC-3 (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Robinson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GermanJoe has posted comments to the Frederick Russell Burnham FAC about the need to tag a few of the images used in the article with OTRS ticket numbers. You and I worked on the Wikicommons issues earlier, and I'm not entirely clear on how one obtains OTRS tickets. Could you take a look at his question and let me know how we can remedy this issue? Thanks. Ctatkinson (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket update and the photos updated. For the airplane one, it'd be good, but not essential, if you knew and posted the movie's name and year. PumpkinSky talk 02:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating these. I'll take a look at the airplane image and see what I can add. Ctatkinson (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Har har, way to go! My Genghis Khan award should be sometime soon too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Well deserved, master of Precious Support! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for the award! I REALLY appreciate it. PumpkinSky talk 09:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Like ES&L 09:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Like and Hanc, while you're at it, I have a Napoleonic upgrad languishing... Montanabw^(talk) 00:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi PS, just a note to say well done for bringing Grace Sherwood up to FA. I was really glad to see that. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  What I'd really like to see is an apology from you for accusing me of leading Rlevse into some kind of trap. Eric Corbett 19:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Eric ... who do you want to see the apology come from? Did Rlevse ever accuse you of leading you into anything? NO. Wikipedia has treated you like shit - aint' no doubt about about that ... Do you really want to beat on someone because of the past? — ChedZILLA 01:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  From SlimVirgin. I've never had a problem with Rlevse. Eric Corbett 03:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for clarifying, it helps, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My mistake for misunderstanding, TY for clarifying. — ChedZILLA 16:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP has archived the Frederick Russell Burnham article. I think the actionable comments and changes that came out of the FAC improved the article, so it turned out to be useful. If you think we should put it through some form of review, or wait for now and submit it again later, I would be happy to be of help. Ctatkinson (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is too bad, I thought it was worthy. I would suggest waiting a couple of weeks, as you have to anyway, and then submitting it to another peer review, and invite the FAC reviewers who commented to participate.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I told her before the FAC, suggesting a PR first. I suggest filing a PR right away and letting the reviewers know you are going to take it back to FAC. If you don't mind, I'd like to be a FAC conom next time, just like we were back a few years ago. PumpkinSky talk 15:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the PR rules require a 15 day wait after a failed FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. "Articles must be free of major cleanup banners and 14 days must have passed since the previous peer review of that article", nothing about a prior FAC. PumpkinSky talk 16:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They may have changed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then they need to update the instructions. As far as I'm concerned, if the instructions aren't updated, the rule doesn't exist. And anyone that tries to pull such as stunt can do you know what. PumpkinSky talk 20:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went and complained to Graham about it, I thought it premature and that issues raised were being addressed, plus Nikki was the only oppose. But that will go nowhere, so I agree that putting it up immediately for PR is the way to go. PR will be a couple weeks and then it can be renomed. Montanabw^(talk) 22:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the instructions required a waiting period, but I'm too lazy to check through the history.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am submitting the article to PR. Thanks to everyone for your help. Ctatkinson (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a request to remove protection from Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea. I wanted to see if you had an opinion before proceeding. Monty₈₄₅ 15:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]