User talk:Juliancolton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| For anything related to the 'Autoreviewer' usergroup, please see Wikipedia:PROPS#New_.27Autopatroller.27_Usergroup and Wikipedia:Autoreviewer. |
| This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Juliancolton. |
| This is the user talk page for User:Juliancolton, where you can send messages and comments to Juliancolton. |
|
|
[edit] FLC nom
Hi. I've nominated the article Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New York Mets managers/archive2. I'll notify you when I leave, and I thank you once again for doing this. Also, if any substantial issues come up, feel free to withdraw the nomination. Mm40 (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] 209.150.50.65 is still vandalizing the Wikipedia
209.150.50.65 is still vandalizing the Wikipedia, such as in these two back-to-back edits which I had to revert (trust me, only in my dreams does IE6 have a 3% usage share). Please continue to keep an eye on this IP. Samboy (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] FLRC maintainence
Thanks; you scared me for a second when I clicked on a blue link and it turned red! Dabomb87 (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Conflict of interest concerning the RFC on Jimmy Wales
Conflict of interest concerning the RFC on the arbitration role of Jimmy Wales in the English Wikipedia. Tony (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- By your own standard, weren't you then conflicted out of requesting it for the other access? Or conflicted out of reporting it to ANI? Seems a tad silly. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that admins only were entrusted with supporting or opposing a watchlist notice. Is this not the case? Tony (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Kwasi Nkansah
Can you userfy this? Thanks.--Giants27 (c|s) 00:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion of List of best-charting U.S. music artists
Delete was made before full 7 days of discussion. Nomination to delete commenced on 23:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC). Deletion occurred less than seven days afterward.
Please restore so discussion, which hadn't ended, can continue.
Respectfully, --Don1962 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry? Seven days had indeed elapsed. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
No they hadn't. Request for deletion occurred late Tuesday evening the 23rd. It has not reached the full 7 day period, and is several hours short of that. A request for rescue could have been added, as well as other discussion. Why was the hurry? --Don1962 (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- There is no hurry. Seven days had fully elapsed, and the discussion was listed under the expired nominations. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. Seven full days had not fully elapsed. I'm taking this to the appeal. --Don1962 (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Huh? The article was nominated at 23:34, 23 June 2009, and I closed it at 00:02, 1 July 2009. That is seven days. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
That is still several hours short of seven days. It's not anywhere near Midnight, when the article was proposed for deletion. Therefore, seven days have not passed. I'm appealing it and your swiftness. --Don1962 (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Did you read the respective times of nomination and deletion? –Juliancolton | Talk 01:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Don1962, with respect, your mathematics is faulty. Even on the assumption that absolute precision to the exact time of nomination is required, 7 days had indeed elapsed.
- Day 1 ends 23:34 24 June, 24 hours after nomination
- Day 2 ends 23:34 25 June
- Day 3 ends 23:34 26 June
- Day 4 ends 23:34 27 June
- Day 5 ends 23:34 28 June
- Day 6 ends 23:34 29 June
- Day 7 ends 23:34 30 June
- Deletion at 00:02 on 1st July is after the end of day 7. Hope this explanation helps. BencherliteTalk 01:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Today is June 30. My typing is 9:56 ET, which is 21:56 June 30, which is not a full 24 hour 7 days.
Wikipedia:Deletion review discussions:
Deletion Review discussions are typically closed after 7 days of discussion. Due to the nature of these discussions, the standards are very different from the standards followed in other discussions. Closers must be very familiar with the standards and outcomes used in the Deletion Review process.
It hasn't been 7 days. "After" would be 23:34 30 June, which has not transpired, so discussion was closed prematurely. --Don1962 (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, you are wrong. In UTC, it is July 1. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) To avoid problems and confusion caused by editors using their local timezones, Wikipedia uses the UTC. You're mixing up your local timezone with "Wikipedia time", and if you're trying to work out how long something had been nominated for deletion, you have to use the same timezone for the beginning and the end - that's just common sense. All the dates and times I set out above are in the same time system, UTC, so there's no confusion here. 7 days had elapsed, unquestionably. BencherliteTalk 02:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Wiki-Conference New York Update: 3 weeks to go
For those of you who signed up early, Wiki-Conference New York has been confirmed for the weekend of July 25-26 at New York University, and we have Jimmy Wales signed on as a keynote speaker.
There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Juliancolton. I'm a relatively new user to Wikipedia. I had a question regarding the deletion result for the article Capoeira in popular culture. It resulted in Keep. However, on the pages discussion page of the article, their is no link that can take me to that particular discussion: June 23 2009. Both links take me to the old deletion discussion in 2007. I don't want to mess around and try to fix it, but do something wrong. Can you help explain the process to me, or perhaps alter it? Maybe I am doing something wrong. Thank you for your help in resolving the discussion, and thank you in advance for any tips in using Wikipedia you can give me, or any help. Ryt 007 (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] GA Sweeps July update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Please help
I'm trying to avoid being confrontational with Michael93555. He made made a split off of one of my watchlisted articles, (Music video) which I undid because working with it would require a lot more effort that nobody really appears to be interested in giving, now. His response was inappropriate, he called me a "hater" and said that I "don't matter". Since you and Michael have a good rapport, would you please explain to Michael that reacting in such a personal way is inappropriate.Synchronism (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Or perhaps you have some advice about this situation for me? Any help would be appreciated, but I know you are very busy. Thanks nonetheless, Synchronism (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion review for Bonnie Doon Shopping Centre
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bonnie Doon Shopping Centre. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Leonese language
Hello Julian. Like you told me, I tryed to talk to the User Rastrojo for searching an accord in leonese language. He refused, and say that his point of view is the right point of view, even he has called their friends from Spanish Wikipedia and they are absolutely trying to destroy the article. Wikipedia forbides this kind of behavior considering that actions like if they were puppets. Like you can see, I'm a member of Wikiproject Languages long time ago, I'm member of Endangered Languages Wikiproject, and even I'm trying to realive the Portal Languages in wikipedia. Rastrojo, and their friends, haven't don anything for improving the article, they just revert and revert, and even some of them not even know the English language. Please, I think this is just because of political opinions (Rastrojo is, like you can see in his page, a Castilian nationalist); they don't do anything for improving the English Wikipedia. Please, help me. I'm really disgusted and sad about that kind of bahavior. Thank you very much in advance by your help. Kinf regards, --Auslli (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Hi Julian. Your closing of the Neda Soltan AfD is being discussed
here. ↜Just M E here , now 20:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Continental Airlines Flight 1883
Hi Julian, for some reason I missed the fact that this article, which I had created in 2006, was in AfD, and unfortunately no-one alerted me to it on my talk page. It would be very good if we can just extend the AfD as opposed to a full deletion review, and this is why I am contacting you. Reading the discussion, it seems to me the article was deleted for lack of notability. I believe that with two sources this article would meet at least two of the notability criteria specified in WP:AIRCRASH:
- 1. General criteria: It involves unusual circumstances: This occurrence, of an airliner landing on a taxiway is extremely rare, as attested in this Associated Press article: "Plane landing on Newark airport's taxiway a rare occurrence"
- 2. Air carrier criteria: It is a non-injury incident which materially contributes to a change in industry or aircraft procedures: After the incident was investigated by the NTSB, two different types of changes were instituted at and around Newark Airport: a. The lighting differentials between the taxiways and runways were increased (to reduce possible confusion between them in future); and b. Two new arrival procedures were added, to be used instead of the one which caused the incident (GIMEE 19-7-1 and GRITY 19-7-1A). See the NTSB report for more details.
In summary, as you can see in the AP article, this was an unusual and rare event, which fortunately did not result in casualties, but you can imagine what would have happened had there been a vehicle and/or personnel, or even another aircraft, on the taxiway that evening as the Continental plane landed. The FAA used this event to modify its procedures, both on the ground by changing the lighting scheme to reduce confusion, and in the air to improve the navigation to the runway. Sometime events like these, which end up with no apparent harm, end up preventing future disasters, as this one may. Anyway, please let me know if you'd like to do this via a re-opened AfD, or a full fledged DR process. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] NHL Entry Draft
Just to let you know, I can't do anything on this tonight. I have to go out now, so I'll work on it tomorrow. I'm sure we'll be fine if I finish it tomorrow morning. Cheers, iMatthew talk at 01:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of best-charting U.S. music artists
Hi Juliancolton. This AfD that you closed included comments from someone who was determined to likely be a banned editor evading their ban, User:Artyline. I'm bringing this to your attention in case you believe that this warrants re-listing the AfD. Thanks, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Don't forget to restore List of best-charting modern U.S. music artists while you're at it. :) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Can you assist a user trying to learn more about our policies?
User:BTRUIIU. It's a little complicated. I've been corresponding with her via e-mail, and I fear I'm not well-equipped to deal with all the questions. Perhaps you can send her a message letting her know you're willing to help, or refer her to someone else? Thanks, Enigmamsg 04:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion of Pro-Mark wiki
I don't know why the Pro-Mark drumsticks wikipedia page was deleted.
I hadn't seen the wiki but i know that they are a very popular brand of sticks. Carters Beauford is the most popular user of Pro-mark sticks but i use them as an amateur drummer and i would just like to know why it was deleted.
Thanks
J-j-jackaka (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Next 2 bot proposals
Here are a couple proposals to add approved tasks to your bot...
[edit] first
Proposal: to post newsletters and notices for other WikiProjects (upon request).
[edit] second
Proposal: search/replaces to the tips of the day, for the WP:TOTD project.
The first search/replace will be to adjust the categories of the tips in the archive. There's 365 tips per year, back to 2006.
Thank you.
Good luck.
Have fun.
The Transhumanist 22:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] A question for the bot department
What kind of tasks can you do with the bot that you don't have to seek approval for?
We ran into a chore with Thehelpfulone, and they said we didn't need approval to run a bot on it. Which makes me want to know what all can be done without approval.
The Transhumanist 22:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Another HV selected picture candidate
This was recently declined for QI at Commons, but I like it and there's no reason to put it in our rotation on the portal. Daniel Case (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
This, by the same user, did get QI. We can use it too. Daniel Case (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Incentive system for sweeps
Hi. Because of your experience at FA and GA I was wondering what you thought if an incentive system was used at WT:FAR. Thanks YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, barnstars YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] BLP help (again)
Hey Julian, one item on this unCat says the following:
- If they are redirects from a person to itself (alternative spelling, etc.) then add the appropriate coding in the article. For example
This is a redirect from a title with a different spelling.
Pages using this link may be updated to link directly to the target page. It is not necessary to replace these redirected links with a piped link.
For more information, follow the link to Category:Redirects from alternative spellings or see this reference page.
and consider removing unnecessary banners from the talk page.
In my watchlist it looked like you are the most recent BLP guru online, so you get the question ... lol.
How do I do this? Is there a page that explains it in further detail?
- Article: Ann Axel redirects to Richard_Axel#Biography
Thanks ;) — Ched : ? 03:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- hmmm .. when I didn't copy the "nowiki" code it gave me a link here. is this what I'm supposed to do? Am I suppoed to remove the banners from the redirect talk page as well? — Ched : ? 03:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Yep, that looks fine. I'm not sure about the talk page banners, though I'd assume they should be removed. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
-
[edit] vandalism-only IP
Hi Julian, care to have a look at User talk:165.228.115.59? You gave them a level 3 vandalism warning a while ago, and they're still at it. Calling Germaine Greer a pornstar! How dare they! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. I didn't know IPs changed--whenever I don't log in at work I get the same IP all the time. Oh, thanks also for doing your (volunteer) job: I see your name all the time on Recent Changes. Later! Drmies (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Hey Julian
It's been a long time since this – do you remember User:Dylan620/School? I'd like to get back to that whenever you have the time. Thanks! → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 17:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Alright! Just a quick question, do files count? → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 18:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Allstars GFDL issue
Hi Julian - I'm offline in a mo - If you're still on for a while can I leave this with you? Sorry to dump it on you but you clearly know what you're doing and have an interest. Pedro : Chat 21:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, no problem. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks matey - also conversation at User talk:Moonriddengirl FYI. Thanks again! Pedro : Chat 21:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
I wish I was nicer about it. Thank you for being one of the editors who spent time deleting the 4000 articles anybot created, I saw your name there. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
Wikipedia:Featured article review/Vancouver → Wikipedia:Featured article review/Vancouver/archive1; no redirect. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Test cricket grounds by date also needs to be g6ed. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #27
The 27th issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Rollback
No worries. I've done it myself a few times. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Lucy
Just noticed that Lucy (elephant) has popped back into existence. As I nominated the AFD, it would probably be a breach of some policy or other if I reverted it myself. – iridescent 15:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Reverted, and I'll add it to my watchlist. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 15:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Greater Manchester July Newsletter, Issue XVII
| The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Ross Zbar
I just checked Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Zbar, which I had commented on a while back. You closed the discussion as Delete but I do not see the consensus to delete. In particular, the last two delete comments do not acknowledge any of the sources I had found and listed above in the AfD. I don't feel particularly strongly about keeping the article--but I do think for proper form it would be appropriate to re-evaluate the discussion as "no consensus". If you still want to delete the page on a judgment call because it is a BLP and the discussion seems to lean to delete, that would be fine with me, and actually I think would probably be the outcome I would recommend--but I think closing and archiving the discussion as having a consensus to delete is inaccurate. Thanks for taking the time to read this! Cazort (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Hello
I think you are undoubtedly one of Wikipedia's most valuable admins. Would you consider running for RfB anytime soon? I would be honored to nominate Triplestop x3 02:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the kind words; very much appreciated. The extra tools would come in useful, but personally I don't feel I've got the slightest chance at passing. Any talk page stalkers about to offer some advice? Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] if you're up anyway...
...would you mind checking in, occasionally, on Vlachs of Serbia? There's an IP at work making very small but significant changes, and my baby is crying! Thanks, and I appreciate your good work. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Tansuit
Hi! Thanks for handling the Tansuit AfD. I've got new information which I believe would indicate that merging was not the correct action. I'll present the information to you, and hope that you'll consider re-opening the AfD for further consideration.
The article "Tansuit" was written about a supposed character from Space Ghost Coast to Coast however this article already has a character listed by the name of "Tansut" or "Tansit" (the name is spelled both ways). Apparently, the name is never spelled Tansuit, and thus "Tansuit" is an improbable spelling and doesn't really warrant becoming a redirect (and thus the information, which is mostly covered in the characters list already, should not be merged). Tansit and Tansut already existed as redirects. It looks like the Tansuit article was created as an improbable misspelling, and had the article's creator known the correct spelling for the character's name, he would have been redirected to the appropriate list.
So... do you think that would warrant re-opening the AfD? or is the appropriate process to open a new AfD? or should I just let it go as acceptable cruft? — X S G 05:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
— X S G 05:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion review for Tansuit
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tansuit. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. My first DRV! How exciting! — X S G 05:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for your review
| Military history reviewers' award | ||
| By order of the coordinators, for your help with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews April to June 2009, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Roger Davies talk 12:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space |

