October

SVG files

Please stop removing {{non-free reduce}} from SVG files. The policy is very clear that they shouldn't contain too many or too detailed geometric elements. If they nevertheless contain too detailed geometric elements, then the source code needs to be modified to remove several geometric elements and to make the remaining ones less detailed. An easy way to check is to look at a big thumnail (say, a 2000 px one): if the image still displays perfectly at that resolution, then the image need to be reduced. --Stefan2 (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While you were writing to me, I was writing to you. No point in having it on two venues, so we should continue there. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2013 September newsletter

In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. Sasata (submissions), Hawkeye7 (submissions)—who has never participated in the competition before—and Casliber (submissions) follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber), Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7), Pinniped, and red fox (both GAs by Sasata).

The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check

I don't think there's any issues - it's a different book - but do you see any colour issues with these? WARNING: NUDITY It's illustrations to Kipling, but... it's a bit... ruder than you might expect. Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Set:_The_Taking_of_Lungtungpen Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The colors on those borders are near-perfectly uniform, better than even the good ones from the batch of 20. I don't see any issues at all. By the way, when you run out of things to fix, there are some images linked above under the header "Storage", and if any of them strike your fancy for restoration, I could definitely use more FPs for Portal:Games. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LoC's down due to the shutdown, so I suspect I'll want something soon enough. Thanks for the suggestions and help! I suspect my copy of Soldier Tales hasn't been read as much, so is cleaner and less vignetted. =) Also, it probably doesn't hurt that I had to use material from the other side (left or right) to extend out one side on each of them - the book's very tightly bound, so it's simply impossible to get enough width of useable paper on one side. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...Oh, wait. Yeah, not happening until the U.S. has a functioning federal government again, I fear. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This nonsense should only last for a few days. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, an old discussion, and a request for an apology or please either substantiate your claim

Greetings and thank you for your contributions. I still think you owe me a direct apology for what I consider to be a false allegation that I was attacking people over there. Either that or please substantiate your allegation that attacking people that disagree with you has merit. But I've made something good of the discussion and your main points. See WP:Wikimedia Foundation. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go with "No, and go away". How's that? You just came out of nowhere to demand an apology for something that happened eight months ago. Not only do I not feel that anything I said merits an apology, but I find it outright pathetic that you'd revisit an eight month old conversation to demand an apology. Don't expect any further replies from me. We're done here. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Puss in Boots

It's not bad, although it could certainly use a better scan, if possible. The description gives the original source, you could probably PD-Art it. The main problem is whether it'd pass FPC. I'd say probably not at the moment (we're a bit low on reviewers, feel free to join in), but it might when things pick up again a bit, though I'm a little neutral on it due to some faded lines. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That said, if your plan is simply a desire to have a Puss in Boots FP, I have a plan that may help with that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't been looking for one in particular, I just found that image and figured I'd bring it to you and see what you thought. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Manguard

	Awesome Bot
	I think this is you. Cute! David 09:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that definitely looks like him :) Legoktm (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Sven agrees: User_talk:Sven_Manguard/2011_Q1#Note_to_Self. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Low bitrate samples

The non-free content guidelines explicitly link to WP:SAMPLE when talking about music samples, and that guideline says that 64kbps will normally be sufficient. The non-free-content policy itself, meanwhile, requires that "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used". If we have to use lower rather than higher, and 64kbps is normally sufficient, we should be reducing music samples to 64kbps (especially when the article in which they are used is nominated at GAC or FAC) unless we have a good reason not to. (And the burden of proof would lie on those believing it should not be reduced to demonstrate that we have a good reason.) This is just the same as the way that we reduce the size of album covers to 300 by 300 px. J Milburn (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes twice in a row that someone posts on my page about non-free tagging removals while I'm posting on theirs about non-free tagging removals. Weird. Anyways, I'd rather we continue on your page than on mine, mostly because I typed a lot over there and don't want to have to retype it all here. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just EC'd here as I hadn't seen your post on my talk page. I'll add my reply there. J Milburn (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Stand Up

Article issues with sourcing and content have been addressed to serve our readers. Might you consider withdrawing so we can close the AFD as no longer neccessary? Best, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013#Statement by Sven Manguard

Have you notified Jimbo that he is being discussed in your statement?

I suppose I could also ask whether you really think this RfC is the way to accomplish what you are trying to accomplish. If this "passes" because 10 or 20 or 30 other editors agree with it (if that is what happens), do you think that means Jimbo will no longer appoint the ArbCom members or election commissioners? Neutron (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November

WikiCup 2013 October newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Our final nine were as follows:

All those who reached the final win prizes, and prizes will also be going to the following participants:

Casliber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for four featured articles in round 4, worth 400 points.
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 20 good articles in round 3, worth 600 points.
Another Believer (submissions) wins the FL prize, for four featured lists in round 2, worth 180 points.
Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the FP prize, for 23 featured pictures in round 5, worth 805 point.
Sven Manguard (submissions) wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
Hawkeye7 (submissions) wins the topic prize, for a 23-article featured topic in round 5, worth 230 points.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 79 did you know articles in round 5, worth 570 points.
ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
Ed! (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
The judges are awarding the Oddball Barnstar to The C of E (submissions), for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
Finally, the judges are awarding Cwmhiraeth (submissions) the Geography Barnstar for her work on sea, now a featured article. This top-importance article was the highest-scoring this year; when it was promoted to FA status, Cwmhiraeth could claim 720 points.

Prizes will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup awards

File:WikiCup Medal Gold FX.png

Awarded to Sven Manguard, for the strongest contribution of featured portals in the 2013 WikiCup. J Milburn (talk · contribs) and The ed17 (talk · contribs) 12:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that

I'm sorry about the tone I struck last time on your user page. I sometimes don't direct my sense of indignation in the right directions. I apologize. Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage

Sven, thanks for your support at that attack page (their own village pump is yet more vehement). I'm afraid Wikivoyage has SWS (small wiki syndrome), where an arrogance, hyperconservativeness, and xenophobia has set in among a fixed group of old-time admins. Not nearly as bad as McNeil's en.WN, which adds utter amateurism to the mix, but a great pity all the same. I hope they can shake themselves out of it and develop a game plan for improving readership, editor numbers, and technical features on the site. They need prodding. Tony (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC) PS Congrats on your award, which you probably haven't seen yet. Tony (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC

Thank you for making such a wise and clear suggestion. I want this conflict over and done with. You seem to have actually read my arguments and know my position. The vast majority of anime and manga articles should be together, but I clearly disagree when a series has 111 episodes of original content (ala Bleach (anime)) or nearly 500 episodes in total. Ones like Cowboy Bebop and Trigun are best all in one. Their size and scope are much more reasonable to have all-in-one at a mere 26 episodes each. Such points of my argument are lost in this. But you have not overlooked it. I accepted the suggestion and added a few more of my own. I want this conflict over with. ASAP. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have both accepted. This "judgement" is not necessary. Please change to opposing the topic ban because no matter the outcome of the RFC; I rather not have Ryulong gone or topic banned. He does more to maintain the integrity of the area. I'd sooner abandon the space than lose his help. Getting to mediation was what I thought would solve it; but when Ryulong abandoned it - with this binding RFC (at least I will make it personally binding if not officially so) the conflict ends with it. Its continuance only causes more damage than my absence would. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the RFC has progressed, do you want me to provide some suggestions on the case by case matter or not? I can post it here if you wish. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You know what. Go ahead. The RfC has given me no cause for concern thus far. I will let Ryulong know as well. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help desk section deletion

I notice that in this edit you removed an entire help desk question with the summery "wrong venue". Wouldn't it be better to leave the question with a pointer to the correct venue (I suppose WP:VPT in this case)? Or is there a reason not to do that? DES ^(talk) 22:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm sorry didn't notice it was your own edit. DES ^(talk) 22:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self

Fix DYKs in Portal:Civil War
Several dates in Nov. and Dec. are missing selected anniv. at Portal:Japan

Sven Manguard Wha? 08:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read/take note of....

User_talk:Yunshui#Wikipedia:Bounty_board - some discussion there about how to edit historical pages.....also User_talk:Casliber#Wikipedia:Bounty_board Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. If someone wants to revert me, I won't argue it. I think my edits were good, but it's not something I'm going to fight over. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris

We have an issue (that may or may not be fixed by my request in the "undo controversial moves" section at WP:RM).—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Editing

Hello Sven Manguard, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 13:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you...?

Hey Sven,

I just responded to a third opinion request, and thus don't feel comfortable doing this - but upon looking at the Siege of Oxford page is seems that article needs a Reimprove template attached. Do you agree? GRUcrule (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re Star Trek portal

Okey, sounds good, glad to have an active participant in the portal process, — Cirt (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... active... that's one way of putting it. I certainly didn't decide to restore as many old featured portals as possible to the current standards by the end of 2014 while also making a deep run into the 2014 WikiCup through points from featured portals. That would be crazy. It would involve assessing over 100 portals, tons of planning, thinking about how the standards have evolved, and doing other stuff. No, that would never happen. It'd be mad. Anyways, Cirt, cheers! Sven Manguard Wha? 04:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, um, good luck, and thanks! If you come across stuff on Featured Portals I've worked on, feel free to let me know first and I"ll try to remedy stuff, — Cirt (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:U2 for peer review

Portal:U2

Miss Bono and myself have requested a portal peer review for Portal:U2.
We would appreciate any helpful advice at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/U2/archive1.

I would also like to remind all members of WikiProject U2 (and other interested editors) that U2 Live at Red Rocks: Under a Blood Red Sky (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for peer review (PR) by Dream out loud (t · c) on 10 November 2013; see discussion. Any feedback would be much appreciated!

Thanks in advance and happy editing,
pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of WikiProject U2. You are receiving this message because you are a volunteer at Wikipedia:Portal peer review, you have contributed to the development of the portal, or you are an active member of WikiProject U2. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technology portal collaboration

Portal:Technology

Hi there Sven Manguard!

I remembered we are co-collaborators at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Main Page Featured Portal drive for Portal:Technology.

I think the portal is all set and ready for WP:FPORTC, I just wanted to check with you first before setting up our co-nomination subpage.

What do you think?

— Cirt (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly choices you made that I would not have made, mostly in how weighted the portal's selections are towards technology from the past 40 years, but I'm not going to fight you over them. I'm going to clean up a few things, and then I'll get back to you. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there, no need for a fight over anything at all! :) Feel free to swap stuff around, add more selections to add more weight, as you wish, please! I just filled stuff in to do some of the brunt legwork, and you can tidy up a bit more if you want. Keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ping you when I've gone through it. It might take a few days. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sure, I'll wait for your go-ahead before WP:FPORTC, and work on other portals in the interim, — Cirt (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt The more I look at the selected articles, the less comfortable I am with some of the choices. Do you mind if I remove some that I don't think tie in clearly enough with "technology"? I'm thinking that 26 (aldol reaction) 28 (periodic table), 37 (history of evolutionary thought), 41 (On the Origin of Species), 42 (Shackleton–Rowett Expedition), 49 through 52 (all math topics), 64 (Surface diffusion), 65 (radius of maximum wind), and 67 (Dirac delta function) are all not "technology" enough for inclusion.

That would be a removal of 12 entries, still leaving 56 remaining. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's fine. Just remember to swap them out for other entries lower down and then reset those other ones back to the original "layout" format I had set up initially, and then update the "max" values back at the main portal page. No worries, — Cirt (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cirt - I could poke at it for days and still never be happy, but that's because I'm a perfectionist. Go ahead, it's ready. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks will do. — Cirt (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Technology. Thanks very much for all of your help. — Cirt (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I was hoping you could set up a RFC for Talk:Case Closed since you would handle it better than I would. There is a dispute on whether the article should use its anglo-saxon localization title, Case Closed, or its Japanese English title, Detective Conan. I was hoping an RFC could be binding to end this. If you can't that's alright. Thanks. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, an RfC wouldn't do much good. The October requested move closed as no-consensus, and looking at the comments that have been made, at this time I can't envision any outcome other than no consensus coming from discussions in the near future. Yes, an RfC might bring in new people, but I'm not sure if that will do enough to tip things in one direction or the other. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the requester was unsatisfied and unconvinced with the result. I thought a RFC would get people, from outside of anime manga, in order to make a more binding consensus. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DragonZero: Is it one person that is unsatisfied and unconvinced with the result, or is it several people? If it's one person, the answer is "too bad, this was just decided a days ago, and it's disruptive to keep asking the same question over and over again trying to get the answer you want". If it's several people, this issue might be sufficiently controversial to warrant an RfC. From what I saw, the issue is one person, with everyone else seeming to accept that there isn't a consensus and therefore nothing will change for the time being. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Chicago

Sorry for the delayed response. I have just made a list of the longest blurbs and will prune the following:

Cool, thanks! Sven Manguard Wha? 15:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am just realizing that I misinterpretted your concern. When you said many of the article blurbs were too long I thought you meant only the ones at Portal:Chicago/Selected article. I now realize that at Portal:Chicago/Selected biography there are over 50 in need of chopping and many more are out of date. Maybe the Portal should just be demoted. I don't do anything but add newly promoted GAs and FAs to it. I haven't looked at the pictures or updated any old blurbs in years. I have been thinking to myself "is it worth it?" for a while. With the lack of WP:CHICAGO manpower I might give up on this. I could leave a note at WT:CHICAGO asking if anyone wants to do all the pruning and updating. I am not going to do it now that I see it is a lot more extensive than I though. Probably half the blurbs need to be updated.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Portal:Chicago/Selected biography isn't the only other area that would need lots of updates and pruning. Each subsection probably has similar issues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at it when I'm done fixing Portal:Biography, which I'm working on at the moment. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Freedom of speech - for peer review

Portal:Freedom of speech

I've placed Portal:Freedom of speech up for portal peer review. Comments would be welcome, at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Freedom of speech/archive1. — Cirt (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cirt: I will look at this after the ArbCom nomination period closes and I've completed my guide. That's time sensitive so it has to take priority. I do have some thoughts on this portal though. Also, see my comments on this page in the Portal:Technology section. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sure, no worries, and will do. — Cirt (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I already responded to you there, above. — Cirt (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

Thank you for voting to unblock me. I'll avoid editing anything related to Latin America and avoid any further drama at AN. MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next matchday scenarios

Hello! I invite you to a new discussion on the matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Next matchday scenarios. Ivan Volodin (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sven Manguard Wha? 20:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry for disturbing you again. Thank you for participating in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Next matchday scenarios. I have proposed a conclusion that addresses your concern regarding reliable sources. Would appreciate a comment. Ivan Volodin (talk) 10:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Technology for featured candidacy

Portal:Technology

I've nominated Portal:Technology for featured candidacy. Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Technology. — Cirt (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sven Manguard Wha? 20:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of TFL on the main page

Following on from a conversation in which you participated over a year ago, a new discussion regarding the Expansion of TFL on the main page has been started. Your views on this matter would be appreciated. – SchroCat (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sven Manguard Wha? 20:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Catherine

Lady Catherine is Giano's aunt. He does her typing because she can't be bothered by such pedestrian tasks. Jehochman ^Talk 17:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was contacted by email about this as well. Apologies to the Lady, and her manservant Giano. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guide

I'm impressed with your guide this year. Thanks for all the work you put into that. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Glad people are finding it useful. It is, however, the last guide that I'm likely to do. Simply put, I'm spending too much time on it, to the detriment of other projects I'd like to be working on. Next year, if I decide to make my thoughts public, I'll be switching to an endorsement style guide. Same size rationales, just only for the people I'm voting for. That will cut the time I have to put into it by 75%. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek portal peer review

Have we addressed all your recommendations at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Star Trek/archive1?

Just wanted to check before closing the peer review.

No rush,

— Cirt (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sven Manguard Wha? 20:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS

Sven

I was in the middle of processing VRTS ticket # Ticket ID parameter missing. when I realized it was related to VRTS ticket # Ticket ID parameter missing.. I processed the permission, after seeing the confirmation, but I cannot reply to the owner, as it is locked to you.

Not a big deal, as the owner sends in a lot pf photos and is likely to notice it is processed, but if we want to close this out, either you have to send the reply, or release it to me, whichever is easier.--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sven Manguard Wha? 20:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --S Philbrick (Talk) 20:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

TParis I'm not sure how to respond to this. Is AAAAAaaaAAaAAAAaaaaAAaAAAaaaaAAaa! the right response? Sven Manguard Wha? 00:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the correct response is to vote "again". Neutron (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did that a while ago, before I asked TParis that question. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing comments from a still open RfA

Please explain why you reverted my !vote on a still open RfA, here. I posted my "opinion" at 17:12, November 26, 2013 and you reverted it at 17:32. The RfA was not closed until 19:07, almost 2 hours after I posted and 1-1/2 hours after you reverted. I would suggest that you restore my comments and !vote, GregJackP Boomer! 01:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The RfA was withdrawn twelve minutes before you posted your vote. I consider that point to be the end of the RfA. As such, I will not undo my removal of your comment. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Pardon me for jumping in here. This appears to be a misunderstanding. GregJackP posted his comment after the candidate stated on the RfA page that he was withdrawing, which meant that the RfA should be closed, but before someone had gotten around to formally closing it. I assume GregJackP hadn't noticed the withdrawal, and I assume Sven Manguard didn't realize that GregJackP hadn't noticed it. I frankly don't think in this context that it matters much whether GregJackP's comment stays on the page or not, and I hope much time won't be spent arguing about it, but if the two of you can't agree on the point, I suggest that a bureaucrat be asked to decide. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had not noticed any withdrawal and the RfA was still open. Sven can either restore my comment or explain why he is refactoring my comments on a still-open RfA at ANI. I don't much care which, but he has no right nor authority to remove my !vote to oppose. GregJackP Boomer! 02:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not policy requires or permits that the comment remain or be removed (it probably is a gray area, but I don't make a fetish of the policy pages and haven't checked), what is the importance of the issue to either of you? I am just trying to defuse this situation because it looks like it is about to become a diversion from more important matters (the inability to sensibly allocate focus and attention between significant and trivial subjects being a consistent weakness of this community at times). I need to sign off for a few hours, and if when I return there is a thread about this issue at ANI with dozens of comments, I am going to be deeply unimpressed. If the two of you can't work this out, I repeat my suggestion that you ask a bureaucrat for his or her view, as the 'crats are notionally in charge of the RfA pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that I was as cordial as I could possibly be in my edit summary, and thought that I made it very clear that the reason why I was removing the comment was because of the issue of timing, rather than anything he said. I'd have removed it if it was a support or a neutral as well. If GregJackP really wants to have the comment back in, I would be fine with him adding it back, but would want him to note in small text that he added it after the candidate withdrew but before the formal closing templates were added. My concern behind the removal was that the RfA stands as an accurate record of how it was when it ended, so the note I described would achieve that while also allowing GregJackP to have his say. Is that a fair compromise GregJackP? Sven Manguard Wha? 03:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since GregJackP already added his vote back himself, I went ahead and added the note in myself. Hopefully this is agreeable to everyone and we can all move on. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)::I've already re-added my comment. I'm a little leery since you opposed me in the ArbCom election, and did not correct the mis-information posted in your guide or otherwise respond to the email I sent you on it. I didn't put a note on it, but have no objection with someone else doing so. GregJackP Boomer! 03:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GregJackP What email? Sven Manguard Wha? 04:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Hi.

In your opposition to my candidacy, you state I was sanctioned and topic banned in 2011. That is not correct. I was topic banned in October 2010, and indefinitely blocked in October 2010. I spent all of 2011 under those sanctions, but they happened in 2010.

Could I ask you to correct that information to the correct year?

I won't ask that you change your position, just the incorrect info. Thanks, and thanks for taking the time to put together a voting guide.

Regards,

Greg"

Sent Nov. 18, 2013 at 22:50, via the email link under the "User" tab on your talkpage. I can provide the header data from the copy it sent me, if necessary. GregJackP Boomer! 04:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Well crap. Based on when it came in and what else is in my archives at around the same time, it appears that I accidentally scooped it up during a bulk archive of a bunch of mailing list posts (and some spam) from the Wikidata mailing list. Let me see what I can do about the above concern. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I've posted the analyses of the withdrawn candidates on the page again, and corrected the number whilst doing so. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Can you please give me an example of such a page.Thanks!RRD13 (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Royroydeb: Mine looks like this. The edit counter tool just checks that the page exists, it doesn't care what's in it. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I write anything in that page?RRD13 (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anything at all. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done,but at the top I find this warning Code that you insert on this page could contain malicious content capable of compromising your account. If you are unsure whether code you are adding to this page is safe, you can ask at the appropriate village pump. The code will be executed when previewing this page.RRD13 (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Royroydeb: Yeah, don't worry about that. That's there in case you load any actual javascript into the page. If you're just loading in plain text, it can't do anything. The reason why the page is "EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js" and not something in the userspace is that only the owner of an account can edit that account's .js pages (admins too), so it's just a hack to make sure someone else isn't opting in for you. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pavle Đurišić

Hi, I've reverted your replacement of the Pavle Đurišić pic. A profile pic does not meet the identification needs of the article per the NFR I used. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December

Green Coca-Cola Bottles

This book discusses the painting in detail, and I found quite a few other art history books that mention the painting as characteristic of Warhol's work in some way. That at least suggests to me that an argument could be made for keeping the article, which I consider sufficient to remove the proposed deletion tag. (I tend to be somewhat liberal in removing proposed deletion tags from potentially notable subjects, as I generally find that fewer people pay attention to PROD than AfD, making it possible for potentially notable articles to slip through the cracks.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 08:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mad Riders

On 3 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mad Riders, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that one critic of the all terrain vehicle racing video game Mad Riders said the game's handling felt "more like socks on a waxed floor than wheels on dirt"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mad Riders. 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, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/SMBC

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, File:SMBC comic 25 March 2008, with caption.png, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting in touch with the creator of the cartoon was a really good idea. It's great to see this as a Featured Picture. Nev1 (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

India U14/U15 redirects

Ya... it is very confusing. To be honest I think it would be better to get rid of the U15 team and just have it be the U14 team. There is an AFC U14 Cup and not a U15 one and the U15 team was just a makeshift side for the Dallas Cup in 2011. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

I didn't mean to insult you.

I do indeed have an awesome military library right here, and some of the best in the world are located nearby. I frequently provide sources for editors all around the world. I'm used to just mentioning the names of certain authors and expecting people to know. The story of Horii and his white horse is pretty well known amongst school children, hence the initial "Holy cow" reaction from one editor.

Brushing off WP:MILUNIT goes against WP:ONLYESSAY; and while I would really prefer that people would not create crap articles that I then have to fix up, Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup.

Have a coffee! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hawkeye7. I appreciate the gesture. I overreacted in this too, and for that I apologize. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Eight Elvises

On 5 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eight Elvises, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Andy Warhol's Eight Elvises, which sold for $100 million, hasn't been seen in public since the 1960s and its location is currently unknown? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eight Elvises. 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) 00:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Japanese units

A racist? Really? No, I wasn't insinuating you were a racist in any way. I have no idea why you would think I was. Neither am I defending my "turf" or anyone else's. I wasn't involved in the discussions that produced WP:MILUNIT, although I do agree with it. I merely disagreed with you on the AfDs. That is allowed, you know. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp: Your comments said that we wouldn't be having the conversation if it was a British or an American unit. The implication I drew from that was that you thought that the unit's being Japanese factored into my decision to list the article for deletion. That is, while not direct, still an accusation of racism. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It's merely a suggestion of unconscious systemic bias, which I have come across many times on Wikipedia. That's not racism. I would be truly amazed if anyone suggested that an article on a British or American division should be deleted, as they are such important and large formations. They're equally important in non-English-speaking countries, but sources (in English, at least) are harder to find, so some editors seem to think we shouldn't have articles on them. For Wikipedia to have articles on formations from English-speaking countries and not on similar formations from non-English-speaking countries would produce a pro-Anglophone bias which we seek to avoid and which would not benefit the project. I was certainly not insinuating any form of racism. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'll retract my comments on the matter immediately. As someone that works with portals, many of which are focused on broad topics that multiple nations are involved in, I'm keenly aware of the discrepancy in coverage between the English-speaking and non-English-speaking regions on Wikipedia, and try to actively combat it in my selections. That is, I suppose, why I was so shocked at your comment. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP user edits to Albert Forster article

Hi Sven, I am the editor who initially reverted this edit from an IP user. I fear that she/he was right, the info she/he removed is redundant since it is already mentioned above. My apologies.--Darius (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to undo my revert then, Darius. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Best Regards :)--Darius (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

According to syntax highlighter your signature is broken, I suggested a fix here.--Laun chba ller 18:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Sven.

It was worth a shot, for both of us. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I guess. I'm going to go work on a portal. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WebCite

I put the info about their funding back in, minus the direct link to Fundrazr. This is sourced factual information that has a direct bearing on the viability and future existence of WebCite, whose method of funding has always been opaque, and in no sense is this "spam". If you still think it should not be in there, please start a discussion on the talk page. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing deletion discussions

I noticed you made this edit to a deletion discussion after you closed it. The way you had it before that edit was actually correct. AnomieBOT breaks if the header is inside the puf top template, because it thinks it's part of the previous section, rather than its own section. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it and pointing that out. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, good catch with those, sorry.

My sleep-deprived brain mixed up birth year with years of reign. Sorry about that, good catch. Thank you :) --68.61.5.58 (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining it. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For your humor and quick-wit on IRC :) Newyorkadam (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

Wikicup flag

Thank you for the recommendations. I'll wait for the flag to be randomly assigned. Tecmo (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Good luck in the competition Tecmo. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of speech portal for Featured candidate

I've nominated Portal:Freedom of speech for Featured quality consideration, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Freedom of speech. — Cirt (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying you due to this. However, no need for you to comment or participate, no obligations or anything at all whatsoever. And thanks again for your prior help with my other quality improvement projects! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at it soon. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good, thanks for your interest! :) — Cirt (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bohai or Balhae

I just closed the RFC you initiated. Feel free to implement it. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civilization IV

Hey Sven, just wanted to let you know I've only just recently came back from my wikibreak about a month ago and ready to start editing again; but I've only noticed your little contest about a week or two ago and only came round about it now. Though the prize is not really that important to me, I'd like an entry into the contest as well as your opinion on how the rewrite of the Civ 4 article came out. I have a feeling my deletions are going to cause a lot of contention with the article and I wanted another opinion. Anyway, since my rewrite came out on the holidays I hope that getting Civ 4 to GA status might turn out to be some kind of belated Christmas present! TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 12:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I just noticed that you had arranged a similar contest that you posted on Talk:Civilization V. I dare say, a little competition on Wikipedia is fun! and certainly much better than doing the maintenance I have on categories. But anyway, I wonder what exactly inspired you to start these little things that hopefully brighten our days up? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 12:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the competitions themselves, I have extra copies of some games from Steam pre-orders (had an extra copy of Civ V, have two extra copies of XCOM: Enemy Unknown). None of my off-Wiki friends are PC gamers, and none of them are really into the turn-based-anything genres, so I figured rather than let them rot in my inventory, I could get articles that I cared about improved by giving games away as prizes. I'm not actually that good at bringing large, complex articles to GA status, and even if I think that one of my articles might be FA quality, I have no intention of ever going through FAC, so I suppose this would be the best shot to see those articles improved. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for your help contributing towards the Main Page Featured Portal drive, the (now successful) initiative to get all portals linked from the top-right corner of the Main Page to Featured Portal quality status. Your contributions towards this effort are most appreciated! — Cirt (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holiday season....

	Cheers, pina coladas all round!
	Damn need a few of these after a frenetic year and Xmas. Hope yours is a good one....Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Casliber. Whether it's good or not really depends on how well you blended the ice. If it's not the consistency of a 7-11 slushie, it needs more blending. Oh, and I assume you used Malibu, and not some cheap knock off? The color looks right, so it probably used real fruit along with, or instead of, a powder mix. And it's in a pineapple. That's good. Yeah, it turns out that I'm really picky about pina coladas. But this one looks good. That is what you were wishing me a good one of, right? Sven Manguard Wha? 16:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(chuckle) - I loved the pina coladas that came out of a slushy machine in New Orleans - amazingly crass. The last sentence is deliberately ambiguous as it can refer to the drink..or any unit of time you like...the rest of the holiday season...or the following year...I've had a bit of an annus horribilis to quote Elizabeth R....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aerodynamic

Regarding your recent page move, please note that the article was previously moved from Aerodynamic (song) because the so-called song contains no singing. Nevertheless if you believe it should still be referred to as a song, it would be best to move it to "Aerodynamic (song)" since there are no other recordings called "Aerodynamic" and thus the article title does not need further disambiguation. Thanks. jhsounds (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of what my interpretation of the music is, it was a matter of unifying the disambiguation terms across all entries in the series that need now or may in the future need disambiguation. The standard seems to be "Title ([artist] song)", so I moved it to "Title ([artist] song)". I was unaware that this is contentious. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the standard based on WP:DISAMBIG (if we're sticking to it being a "song") would be "Title (song)". If there was more than one song called Title then you'd have to use "Title ([artist one] song)", "Title ([artist two] song)", etc. For example there are multiple songs called "Get Lucky" by different artists, therefore the Daft Punk song is disambiguated as "Get Lucky (Daft Punk song)" and not simply "Get Lucky (song)". Hopefully this clarifies the issue. jhsounds (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]