User talk:Mr rnddude/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

AN/I

Thank-you for the analysis. May I point out one flaw? I don't make 90%+ of the MfDs, I just happened to have a unclosed batch that were 90% of the old business at a point in time. Check my post at the top of the thread to see mine were 13 or 14 out of about 31 active. Still a significant number but low enough your conclusion needs a second look. Thanks again. Legacypac (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac I had meant to mean 90% of the current "draftspace" MfD's rather than 90% of MfD's. I also meant currently. I will revise that statement and see if any other of my conclusions need immediate amendment. Thanks for the note. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I've not looked at Draftspace vs Userspace. I counted all open MfDs and it's a moving target of course. BTW based on my reading of WP:BANEX and the section just above that, commenting on an XfD started by the other party is normally not allowed, but commenting on one started by a 3rd party is fine. Hence the exception carved out originally - if my reading is not correct the exception makes no sense. Legacypac (talk) 09:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The only way that I can see that commenting on an XfD started by the other party wouldn't be allowed is if I take their comment on such an XfD to be a direct reply to you (which would fall under point 2. of WP:IBAN). I believe that's actually what Nihlus Kryik was trying to tell me, if that's the case then the exception and the upping to full IBAN would make sense. If not, then, I'm not sure what is achieved. That's actually why I made a comment rather than any kind of !vote. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not as explicit as it could be, which is why I quiried User:Primefac in the thread, but thinking about it more it seems "reply to each other in discussions;" appears to cover it. If you start a discussion that says Sucky Article should be deleted, and I reply "Keep because blah blah blah" I'm replying to your original post. However if someone else starts the deletion discussion on Even Worse Article and we both reply to that without commenting on each other's posts, we are both ok. Legacypac (talk) 09:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac, hmm, well if that's the case then full IBAN will fit the purpose. If it's not, then it's not that difficult to just have it extended to cover your MfD nominations as a whole. I'll hat my giant comment and write a smaller one underneath. Taking up a lot of space as it is. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Just a sec. I'll show you something else. [1] over 82% match to the result and a high percentage of the 1500+ MfDs are started by me. Legacypac (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac, thanks for the link. 82.3% match rate is significantly higher than I'd worked out based on my readings of the MfD noms currently on the page. Well, you'll have better days and worse ones. Extrapolating on my part was an error. I didn't know there was a tool for XfD stats. Will keep that, it might come in handy. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The tool is not working fully for me right now, but it's really useful for checking yourself against consensus amd defending yiurself if anyone ever says you are off the mark at an XfD. Here's another useful tool http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py Legacypac (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac, coincidentally, my MfD stats are 0/1 (0%); Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Polythesis/The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control. Haha. I have the editor interaction analyzer tool on my user page, I use it for cases like yours, but, I only needed to look at the post IBAN interactions and that accounted for about 40 edits. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I was just sharing a useful tool for future use, not suggesting anything here. Your vote was one target there, just had a deletion out of left field. One thing about the stats tool - the big percentage is only part of the story. To score a "match" to help your percentage you need an exact match like Vote Delete=Result Delete. Vote=Delete does not match Result=Speedy Delete or Result=Blank even when the effect is the same. The grid shows the outliers and the list shows the detail.

If you get interested in cleanup work and sorting good material from CSDable junk, check out my main userpage. I've collected some good links for that. I find it easy to click my username and find the links. Legacypac (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

JackW436 ANI

Thanks for the ping regarding that ANI. I only saw it today after a rather nice weekend out. The community endorsed indef block was inevitable for Jack. Blackmane (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Citation style

It's actually a very common citation style, according to MLA and Chicago Manual of Style. Although there are some other ways to do it, this is the one I prefer. I've tried some of the templates, and find them extremely cumbersome. See Battle of Rossbach, Battle of Leuthen, Battle of Hochkirch, Battle of Kunersdorf. In the latter, I did try a different style, and it made me craaaa-zeee. In the end, I always come back to this one as the easiest to read, and to type. auntieruth (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Auntieruth55, alright, thanks for the note. I started out using the Harvard APA6th style and moved to Wikipedia {{sfn}} format because it's both tedious to type out every single citation in APA6th (when that's a bibliography style) and it becomes difficult to navigate through source code when there's a lot of very long citation strands. I've just never seen the citation style that you use before. I've put in an ambiguity tag in one place on the article due to confusion as to who exactly is being referenced. I also need to query what citation is being used in one paragraph, and have put a CN tag there. Other than that, it looks to me to have met all the other B-class criteria. I did some prose work to get the B4, please review that to see if it meets your expectations. B3 and B5 are obviously met. I believe B2 has also been met. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Panthéon-Assas University

From a section higher up on your talk page, I notice you were previously active in discussions about this article. Lately the article made a new appearance at RFPP. The upshot was that the article was semiprotected four days by User:MelanieN and I wound up blocking the other editor mentioned in the RFPP for 3 days. Meanwhile, in an unrelated action, User:CambridgeBayWeather has fully protected Sciences Po for a month. Since the dispute on Panthéon-Assas University and at Sciences Po has been raging for many months, I wonder if you have any advice for admins. It's possible there is some COI editing and some sockpuppetry, but it would need to be documented so that action can be taken. One option might be long-term full protection of both articles, which would force the working out of the issues on the talk page. Any other suggestions? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• EdJohnston, well, I was hoping that this had been resolved, but, no I'm not surprised it hasn't. I haven't looked at PA in a while, but, I did notice the recent spate of edit-warring as the article is on my watchlist. Conversely, however, I have stayed as far away from SP as humanly possible to avoid mixing conflicts. I had tried to help out at the PA article by bringing it up to B-class, but, when looking for sources to actually write the article I come up against the blockade that many useful sources are in French. Je ne parlez Francais (I think that's how you say it). Instead I then tried piece by piece to resolve the conflict on the talk page. Then came the new blockade, Launebee would implement some of my recommendations and also return the old content back into the article. XIII would then revert the change on the grounds that I had approved only some of the change. Which, to be fair, was accurate. The problem is, the improvements disappear with the reverts as well. Rinse and repeat. Zero sum game. Nothing short of a T/PBAN will resolve this. The article is under the watchful eyes of both editors and long term protection (even six months) will only put a halt on this conflict for that period. If there is a COI, for either editor, then that's all they're really here for as well. Just skim the last 500 edits and note that there's large (2-4 month gaps) between high activity periods (due to the conflict) starting in June of 2016. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Burebista

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Burebista 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 Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Sports

I want to translate articles regarding Italian sports from Italian version removing redirects on Pallone: do you understand my constructive intention?--Nonhosoldi (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Mr rnddude, thank you for your comments at my RfA. I hope that I'll be able to answer your concerns with my actions rather than my words, since that clearly failed horribly. Cheers, ansh666 00:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ansh666, I did take a look at the two links your re-provided me from question 3. I should say I'm more concerned with how you'll respond when you make a mistake, as will inevitably happen, rather than how you respond to queries suggesting you've made a mistake where you haven't. The measure of an admin is in their ability to deal with the errors in judgement that they make, not the good judement they exercise. Any admin can issue a good block, or delete the right page, etc etc. Far less often, in my experience, is an admin (person, really) able to admit to, and respond appropriate to, their error. Good luck and congratulations on passing your RfA. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

A complaint I have recieved

{{subst:adminreview1}}

I am requesting administrative review over my link to the Rational Wiki webpage about William Lane Craig:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig

I am trying to include a link to the RationalWiki article on Dr. Craig:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig

My edit, I believe, is perfectly legitimate. Wikipedia is not a "Reasonable Faith" website nor a Dr. Craig fan club. Readers can decide and judge for themselves.

• Umm... content discussions don't belong on my talk page, but, administrator's feel free to review as I am currently writing up a post on the article in question; William Lane Craig. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)