Hey! Big update on what the developers have been working on, and what is coming up:

coding

• Fixes for the "moved pages do not show up in Special:NewPages" and "pages created from redirects do not show up in Special:NewPages" bugs have been completed and signed off on. Unfortunately we won't be able to integrate them into the existing version, but they will be worked into the Page Triage interface.
• Coding has been completed on three elements; the API for displaying metadata about the article in the "list view", the ability to keep the "patrol" button visible if you edit an article before patrolling it, and the automatic removal of deleted pages from the queue. All three are awaiting testing but otherwise complete.

All other elements are either undergoing research, or about to have development started. I appreciate this sounds like we've not got through much work, and truthfully we're a bit disappointed with it as well; we thought we'd be going at a faster pace :(. Unfortunately there seems to be some 24-72 hour bug sweeping the San Francisco office at the moment, and at one time or another we've had several devs out of it. It's kind of messed with workflow.

Stuff to look at

We've got a pair of new mockups to comment on that deal with the filtering mechanism; this is a slightly updated mockup of the list view, and this is what the filtering tab is going to look like. All thoughts, comments and suggestions welcome on the NPT talkpage :). I'd also like to thank the people who came to our last two office hours sessions; the logs will be shortly available here.

I've also just heard that the first functional prototype for enwiki will be deployed mid-April! Really, really stoked to see this happening :). We're finding out if we can stick something up a bit sooner on prototype.wiki or something.

I appreciate there may be questions or suggestions where I've said "I'll find out and get back to you" and then, uh. not ;p. I sincerely apologise for that: things have been a bit hectic at this end over the last few weeks. But if you've got anything I've missed, drop me a line and I'll deal with it! Further questions or issues to the usual address. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Always nice to see someone else agree with me on a possibly iffy vandalism call. Meters (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theories of humor does not cover section blanking. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He should make another edit... Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another IP (actually the one who made the first deletion, but from same range and school so prob same guy) inserted a batch of dubious tags a few days ago. I guess the approach is to label as dubious and then return a few days later to delete? I'll check the listed refs but I know I've heard one of the theories before and I have absolutely nothing to do with this topic. Meters (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mess. One account added a new theory to the article, based on his own paper, and is trying to get competign theories removed from teh article. I suspect the two IPs are the same guy since they have virtually identical edit paterns. Meters (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask for page protection to get the time to clear this out. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warned the user and the IPs, and threw some info on it on the talk page for now. I don't have enough experience to know if this is really as bad as I think, but it sure seems like it is. Meters (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent. Meters and I think that the section Mimetic Theories should be deleted. If you agree, can you please post to that effect at Talk:Theories_of_humor#New_section_on_Mimetic_Theory.--Gautier lebon (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input here. Did I do something wrong when I mentioned his name? He self-identified as the author of the paper, and his name is on the first page of the PDF copy he links to.

I've now identified 3 definite IPs hes using, 2 more almost certain, and a sixth likely. Meters (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should not mention his name when he uses a nickname. That is a breach of WP:OUTING and that can cause you a lot of trouble.

That he uses different IPs, does not say much. Mobile internet uses different IPs all the time. You should look to accounts. If you can see that he misuses multiple accounts, you can request a sockpuppetinvestigation. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In repairing the disambiguation from this template, you linked incorrectly to Azure (color) instead of Azure (heraldry). The former article is about the HSV color wheel, and not about coats of arms or flags. You may need to correct quite a number of other changes, if you have been repairing the 400+ lionks that were broken by the recent move of Azure. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have only tried to repair the template. No other involvement in Azure. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I have created the templete Template:Films inspired by Mallammana Pavaada by making the reference of Template:Films inspired by Manichitrathazhu. The details are available in the table of Mallammana Pavaada i.e., Mallammana Pavaada. May I know why this templete is proposed for deletion? — Vijethnbharadwaj  ^Talk 15:20, 9 April 2012

As you said: full details are available in "Mallammana Pavaada". A navigation template is, in my opinion, superfluous. See also: Not Everything Needs A Navigationtemplate. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, As you have told that "Not Everything Needs A Navigationtemplate", you are suppose to delete Template:Films inspired by Manichitrathazhu also. Because, it is also the same case. Even in Manichitrathazhu page, all details are available. If you delete Template:Films inspired by Mallammana Pavaada and you retain Template:Films inspired by Manichitrathazhu, it will be a kind of biasism right? Because even in the case of Manichitrathazhu page, all details are available and a templete is created by taking the information available as the reference. — Vijethnbharadwaj  ^Talk 00:07, 14 April 2012

Dear Night of the Big Wind:

Would you like to take a look at an unproductive edit war that has developed at this article? You had contributed with a few dablinks to this article recently. Thanks. mukerjee (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How am i at an edit war? I have replied to each and every instance of discussion...there was 2 weeks without reply to build consensus (i removed the table after sometime and moved to his sandbox when he said it was not ready and even deleted my own table template as AGF) Then after 2 weeks without comment he comes back reverts it all (which, btw, going back and seeing early i did not even change his edits back till the long period, after suggesting he does so per BRD and "warring") and discusses nothing. See the talk page, each and every section. And this is not the first time (See his user page here) and the comment above yours on his page on npov additions elsewhere. Per BRD he needs to learn to discuss and im willing to piecemeal discuss changes but there is a procedure. Further this incarnation adds a 90k table that slows down reading make it difficult for readers. WP:ARTICLESIZE (also ignored by said user)

He wants to hypocritically (where he says on talk "pls do not act unilaterally; respond to other arguments as well on the talk page first" -- and then ignores that to unilaterally make his first changes and then calls for others to tell me what is wrong on his version) change everything to his version without disscussion...such large scale rewrites and content removals that were surced (when challenged at that) always need consensus discussion FIRST. He asserts something is important and then says something else is not, yet keeps the first that he agrees with and removes the second he dislikes (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)...and see the talk page, i do accomodate and i do come to agreement through discussion. (stuff like Talk:Association for Democratic Reforms is not constructive either). Also where was my "threat" of starting a war? Please see the talkpage and tell me how im not attempting a uselful discussion. where i have previously discussed and dissected every small edit...from 13 to 29 March there was no discussion from him yet a revert follows.

Talk:Uttar_Pradesh_legislative_assembly_election,_2012#Changes_needed_in_the_article I have discussed every single issue here...see there what happened from the 13 March correspondence to the 26 March one (he doesnt bother to reply to my attempts at talk and then accuses me of arring...could you see that before accusing me too). He then says "Please give your justifications, until then I am reverting to the more up-to-date version"...how is the onus on the stable version to justify "changes"? And his wording is quite clearly not neutral with loaded terms and synthesis

Dont see why we have to take his demands to insert his version but if need be we can lick it down to the stable version and perhaps generate discussion (which ive done on EVERY occassion for every redundant talk page section he generates)Lihaas (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further dont threaten to block (which was wexplicit as opposed to the claim of a threat to start a ewar) and further, ive restated the issues on talk which he can and should discuss there.Lihaas (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned the both of you that you should engage in a meaningful discussion. I am not taking sides or get further involved. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Night of the Big Wind. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Manx Breeds, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a copyvio or source is public domain or under another free compatible license. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the article has disappeared now you have made an redirect of it. BTW, the page I linked to, has an copyright regarding to the trasncription: HTML Transcription © F.Coakley , 2003 Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited County Clare, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Willie Clancy (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) 11:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain 3RR does not apply to blocked socks, correct? Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should proof that it is a sock, what I doubt. But by now, it is my text. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUCK, but I digress. I'm ok with the content. Not the sock. Regards Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editwarring with a suspected duck or sock, is still editwarring. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a "sock" and I even added the fact that she is still modeling. Why was my comment in the talk page removed by fastt? I added it back again but do not care if it is removed again. N!ghtl!ght (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Checkusers have a different opinion about you not being a sockpuppet... Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Banner. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Can you please clarify your recent edit summary at Louise Vyent? As far as I'm aware 3RR does not apply to indef blocked editors and their socks, thoug I admit I could be wrong. It wouldnt be the first time. Regards. Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you are running around like a maniac seeing sockpuppets everywhere. I advice you take a break from puppet-hunting because at the moment your efforts are damaging for Wikipedia. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What damage? if anything im trying to prevent damage. Once again, please clarify your opinion on 3RR and indef blocked users/socks. Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You AfD against Louise Vyent, clearly inspired by the activities of the sockpuppet and not on research about the topic. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 for personal attacks on Talk:Eugenics in the United States, most especially this diff. You've been blocked for PA before, and should know better.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The Banner (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am blocked by an administrator who was already involved in the conflict and was therefor biased and not independent in his decision ([1]). Secondly, my responseNo, it is more that you have run into the black sheep of the family. is never ment to be an personal attack. The smiley there is not for nothing. It was a reply on an edit of Trilobitealive who wrote I've got to admit that I feel like I've intruded upon a domestic dispute between intimate partners who have been arguing for a long time. Night of the Big Wind _talk 2:30 am, Today (UTC+8)

Decline reason:

The comment can easily be interpreted as a personal attack, and the use of the smiley does not negate that. Having been blocked for NPA four months ago I think you need to be more civil in your approach with other editors. Did your reply add value to the conversation on that talk page? No. Did your comment add to the level of tension on that page? Yes. Lastly, wrt the "involved" allegation, I don't believe Qwyrxian's block or comments comes anywhere near a violation. Take a break for the short remaining block time and when you return use preview and consider whether or not your comments will be positive and interpreted in the way you meant them.  7  01:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Another admin asked me to look at your unblock request. First of all, putting a smiley next to an attack does not stop it from being an attack. Second, while that comment itself may seem innocuous, the rest of your conversation on that page is a continuation of your long "battle" against ClaudioSantos. I'm not saying you followed him there like CS claimed; but I am saying that your responses there are deliberately confrontational and harassing. So my use of WP:NPA as a blocking reason is shorthand for a greater pattern of bad behavior you have directed towards CS for quite a long time. Finally, I'm not WP:INVOLVED per the meaning of that term, because while you and I have edited together before, we've both agreed and disagreed; I've never, as far as I know, edited on the topic of eugenics. And our interaction wrt your fight with CS was been (as I recall) from an administrative perspective, and thus not a breach of WP:INVOLVED.

Having said all that, if an admin familiar with the history between you and CS wants to unblock you they may do so without my approval. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments and actions are really confusing. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note to the discussion about ClaudioSantos on ANI for an admin with familiarity with this situation to take a look at this block. Sorry if I confuse you; my feeling in this case was that you and CS were both bad. Since your action was direct and clear, a short block was the correct solution to prevent disruption. For CS, because I'm requesting a much longer sanction that will significantly curtail his edits, I felt I needed community consensus first. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank, just what I wanted to hear: your prior involvement played a role in my block. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean involvement in the sense of WP:INVOLVED, you need to re-read that policy. Having acted as an admin in a prior dispute/incident does not preclude an admin from acting again. Otherwise, I couldn't block someone I warned for vandalism, or, if I blocked them once, I could no longer block again. Yes, the block was based upon my knowledge of the history between you two. However, if you think I breached the rules, feel free to raise this at WP:AN once you're unblocked or your block expires. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plain biased. We'll meet again. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The Banner (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have the feeling that I get appointed to be the black sheep now. The use of the threats to stifle an appeal of the suspension is totally inappropriate and I can not accept that. Note the use of emoticon. The "smiley face" was intended to make it clear that it was an off-handed remark, not to be taken seriously or misread as being offensive. I was ment to be humerous and as a reply on the "domestic dispute" from user Trilobitealive. The comment is ambiguous, and mosr people will read it as an innocent comment, rather than the strained reading that the blocking administrator put on it. To my opinion, the encyclopedia's interest in promoting free discussion on talk pages is being "chilled" by an over aggressive and overly sensitive reading of my words, and a strained interpretation of WP:Civil. If offense was given, none was intended. And, I apologize for anything that was misread or misunderstood. Please be aware that English is only my second language, so humerous remarks can get lost in translation.
The admin who had prior involvement in my dispute, made a finding based on alleged intent and motive, and he did that because I 'had been warned in the past.' What he really did was judging my conduct in the past and used that judgement upon this case. He clearly wanted to read a personal attack in it, so he started digging to find some intent. A fair and open-minded reader would not come to their conclusion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have a long history of various kinds of disruptive editing, and in particular unconstructive fighting with ClaudioSantos, which is not helpful to the encyclopaedia, and which could easily justify an indefinite block, let alone the short block you have been given. The details of the particular incident which led immediately to your block are irrelevant, as there are ample grounds for a block even without that incident. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

	Defender of the flock
	The Black Sheep, from a 1901 edition of Mother Goose by William Wallace Denslow. Apparently they have a lobby and are sensitive, too. — We're you B-A-A-A-D? I think not. Hope you recover speedily 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant award! Binksternet (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reach you via e-mail. My e-mail can be accessed through Wikipedia (if you are so inclined). I don't believe your account is so organized. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See left hand panel: "E-mail this user" Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Banner. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody lift the autoblock of my IP? I was blocked for three days (14:27, 15 April 2012 Qwyrxian (talk | contribs) blocked Night of the Big Wind (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours (Personal attacks or harassment), not for 78 hours (A user of this IP address was blocked by Qwyrxian for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Night of the Big Wind". The reason given for Night of the Big Wind's block is: "Personal attacks or [[WP:Harassment This block has been set to expire: 22:48, 18 April 2012. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

The Banner (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for 72 hours at 15 April 2012 @ 14:27 UTC. So that should have expired by now. Due to autoblock I will be blocked to 22:48 UTC: Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Night of the Big Wind". (...) This block has been set to expire: 22:48, 18 April 2012. As far as I know it is not illegal to contest a block, but in fact I get another 8 hours for doing so. What I am doing now, is appealing against the autoblock. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Block has expired, the autoblock should have been gone a while back. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just saw your message now. The autoblock generally triggers if you try to log in early, before the block expires--like, even if you try to log on 1 minute early, then the system automatically drops a 24 hours autoblock. It's not because you contested the block. Alternatively, it's just the system being imperfect. My system says there's no more autoblocks here, as DeltaQuad says, so I think this should be resolved. Send me another email if it's not; I'll be back to WP in about 45 minutes. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited County Clare, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MacMahon (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) 09:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Catherine Healy (chef) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reliable sources about her, just sources that mention the restaurant or her husband. Michelin stars goto the restaurant and not the chef.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 05:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Template messages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know you reverted it. Thanks for telling me. The page had several flags for duplication of sources. The date system also didn't match MLA format because of its ambiguous nature (not for 15, but for 1-12) under WP:CITE/ES and Template:Cite web to name the month. Even if you keep the format style because of the ambiguous nature of the format it tries to fix the form to the one you saw. The only reason I hit that page was because of the duplication of its sources, but it flagged it once for each error, didn't realize you were undoing it. I'll avoid it, but my suggestion would be to name the month as it doesn't change the format as noted in the template. Keeps the format and doesn't hurt readability. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have used Template:Cite news in the common form "Day Month Year". I do that on all my articles. Even in your links, nothing says that my date format is wrong... Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just pointing out that the template you are using says to use the name, not the number of the month. The access date is fine, but you switched format in the publication date. It is so minor of a detail I was trying to explain what happened, how it happened and why it should not be ambiguous. If it was 12-04-2011 what date am I referring to? Naming the month prevents ambiguity is all. I'd actually just edit it to reflect 04 as April. That way it matches the other formats. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the examples for the Cite web point to naming the month. Like '30 April 2005' and another '|date=30 April 2005 |accessdate=6 July 2005'. See for yourself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I get it. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the trouble. I didn't mean to cause you any headaches. If you need any help feel free to ask for my assistance. I am a very prolific Wikipedian with a sticking point for format, but I can assist in improving articles to save them from the chopping block. You seem to fill a very niche center on Wikipedia with your articles and that is not a bad thing. Keep it up and I might give you a Barnstar! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just started checking my "old" articles and replace month-numbers by month-names. It can take a while to fix that, because I have close to a 100 restaurant articles Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The AWB tool helps fix those and make them semi-automatic. Not sure who Lotje is, but do people mess with your pages often? He inserted typos into the article. I'm working on the TypoScan project and hate typos. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lotje is, as far as I know, a Belgian lady. So she should be able to read a Dutch text.

Combined with checking the dates, I am also adding more sources. The last period I have acquiered several Michelin Guides. I use them for the new articles, but did not go back to add them. Because I have to start somewhere, I have chosen "Defunct restaurants with or once holding two or three stars", because it has just 9 articles. Seems like a good practise run. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dag, Night of the Big Wind , waarom deed je dit? Is er iets wat ik miste? Lotje ツ (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, je mistte het verhaal hier direct boven. Night of the Big Wind _talk 07:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you think I am right by removing the copy and paste sections and the NuStar with its endless delaying, that IP user 68.231.15.56 may have a serious matter of WP:OWN with comments like this edit summary.[2] Or this. [3] I removed it once and cited a reason, if he has problems let someone else bring it up, the article is mostly fine, but definitely not neutral. Its not worth arguing with someone who claims ownership of the article, even if they are wrong about it. Even as he is, he is useful to the project. So please, don't revert again, otherwise you break 3RR and could be in trouble from the auto flagging. Don't need a edit war over this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I requested page protection last night, but no decision yet. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just look through the history, that IP address has basically owned the 2012 and 2011 articles and I do not want to look how far back, but he reverts EVERY change to the manual of style fixes. Even when such changes are proper under the article. Namely, linking every date to the calendar even when it should not be linked to it. Protection doesn't matter, this user has a year long history of claiming ownership on the article. They won't protect it, its an entirely different matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Get Smart!. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share.

I'm interested in the work you have done about Ireland, and chefs and restaurants.

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me? Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Maxtremus's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regarding your comment at User talk:Maxtremus: You write,

Nice that you make loads of templates, but do you mind to clean up your own mess? Most templates are unfinished (like Template:Largest cities of Venezuela and contain links to disambiguation pages. Please do something about it quickly. User:Night of the Big Wind

May I respectfully disagree with you here, Night of the Big Wind? The way I see it, User: Maxtremus is placing these templates on what appear to be thousands of articles, and the template is his contribution. Let others--who benefit from the improvement that he has provided--now do the work of which you speak. It will take only a short time for those who care about the article Venezuela to deal with the matter of that one template, but if Maxtremus had to "clean up his mess", as you understandably but unfortunately call it, then hundreds of articles would be denied his improvement, as his time would be spent doing work that others can do. For example, I recently found the cities template that he did for Illinois. Yes, he failed to place the political subdivisions (counties) in the template, leaving it with some blank brackets that needed to be filled. It took me about five minutes to fix the problem, during which time he was probably able to plant the same template on probably about 30 other articles. And now those users can each take five minutes to fix up the templates they care about, while Max does more good work. It's a good model, and I support him in the way he is doing it. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised this at ANI (possibly hundreds of templates based on non-reliable sources)-- not sure how cleanup will be affected, but it's a huge problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chernobyl after the disaster. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How were this users edits WP:Vandalism? CMD (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]