User talk:Arxiloxos
Archive page
After years of avoiding the task, I've set up an archive page for older discussions (180 threads from 2008 through 2012) at:
--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Proactiv
Hi Arxiloxos. I wanted to drop you a note with a similar message as the ones I've left SummerPhD and a couple editors from the Proactiv AfD. I'll be helping Guthy-Renker make contributions to the Talk page with a potential conflict of interest and wanted to introduce myself. My approach to COI is to offer contributed content for consideration on the Talk page, while leaving editorial decisions up to those that serve the reader's best interest. My hope is if you have a bit more patience left in you, you might be willing to spend a bit of time vetting my work and collaborating with us on the Talk page. I will aspire to demonstrate exceptional integrity and quality of work to make it worth your time to help us. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 18:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
It is illegal to take payoffs from Cosa Nostra members!
You deleted my post within 8 minutes! You must have been waiting patiently by your laptop. Coincidence, huh? Nobody else knew he stepped down just hours before the post. I am convinced you are being payed for your "service". I have also noticed that, in the past, you have deleted everything about Carmine Blaine Marcello. Do not be surprised if you are investigated for this. Have a nice day. Bridge70002 (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- You're a loony Basket Feudalist 09:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Nice work
Nice work on New Orleans crime family. Also, getting a stalker account named after you is almost a badge of honour! 
bobrayner (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Chicken John
Hello there. As you were one of the participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken John, I thought I should let you know that I have relisted the article at AfD after a discussion on my talk page. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken John (2nd nomination) if you are interested in commenting. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Francois Hollande
I'm sorry to disagree with you, but my informations are true, Francois Holland is realy dead 92.147.149.16 (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
While i'm here I thought i'd tell you that I suggested that that attack account Bridge made have its username changed by a Bureaucrat, kind of a 'Collateral damage' stopper. If you have a comment on this i'd suggest it be left in the reply to me on my talk page. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 10:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Re: Kid Cudi
Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I was unaware that Wikipedia's definition of "alumnus" varied from the standard meaning of the word. Are there also Wikipedia guidelines suggestion how to mention that these additional people listed did not graduate? It's a tad misleading to assert that the person is an alumnus while they simply attended for a certain amount of time and that could be confusing for readers. Best, SpencerT♦C 06:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I just reacquainted myself with a dictionary. ([1]) SpencerT♦C 06:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Most schools with which I have close connections (and all of the ones I attended myself) call you an alumnus whether you graduated or not. (If for no other reason than because your donations are welcome whether or not you got the sheepskin!) As you may have noted, in my restored listing for Kid Cudi I mentioned that he didn't graduate, in part to anticipate the concern you express, in part to explain why I didn't include a class year. Regards, --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
What the Heck?
I'm not the one who's doing it. Smartie2thaMaxXx is the one who is doing it not me! Supermariokart64 (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Look I'm sorry man. I just wanted him to just leave it the way it was, but I didn't mean to go all crazy and edit war over and over and over with him I didn't mean to do that. All I can say right now is, that I'm sorry for causing all this. And I won't do it again I promise. Supermariokart64 (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Boudreaux's Butt Paste for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Boudreaux's Butt Paste is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boudreaux's Butt Paste until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for being a vandal fighter.--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 19:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Monroe H. Freedman
Hi Arxilos,
Thanks for the great job on cleaning up the Monroe H. Freedman article. It looks to be much more in line with WP standards. I added the Proposed Deletion because the article was written as self promotion. It looks a whole lot better now. I'll contribute to it later if I see something that can be added or shored up with citations/references.
Have a nice day.
Chad595 (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
High Schools vs ISDs
Regarding undoing my call for deletion:
I see, and understand, that there is a "longstanding practice" of maintaining separate pages for schools and ISDs. I personally think this makes no sense for a school district with only one school, but if that's longstanding practice, I'll respect that.
However, there are still issues of inaccuracy and redundancy on these pages. The Milford Independent School District contains the following: "Milford ISD is consolidated into one large building"... If the ISD is "consolidated into" the high school, then how are they in any way separate? This should probably represent that "Milford ISD currently contains one high school, Milford High School"; I'm not going to make those edits, though.
If this is supposed to be one article about the school district and another about the school itself, then some things should go on one page or the other. For example, typically sports programs are delineated by school, not by school district; it would be more proper to list the sports programs on the high school's page, and not have the (nearly redundant, but slightly different) list of sports programs offered at the school on the ISD's page.
I'd like to improve some of the school/ISD pages, starting with this one, for consistency. However, it'd be good to know what kind of consistency is "allowed" first, so I'm asking.
- Your questions are reasonable ones. I looked at the website for the Milford ISD and I can see where you're coming from--all the grades are in one building, the website treats all the grades together and doesn't have much content that's applicable only to the high school grades. In theory, our article about the high school would give the enrollment numbers and other info only for the upper grades, but I didn't see those separated numbers on the website. There is some different info in the high school article, however--the 2 state championships and 2 runners-up are important stuff for a Texas high school. I suppose it's possible that in this case, where there's only one K-12 school in the district, that the high school article might be merged into the school district article. That's not the same thing as deleting it, because it preserves the edit histories of both articles (making it easier for editors to combine the two articles in a collaborative way), maintains the name of the high school as a redirect to the district article, and doesn't break the links from other articles to both of these (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Milford_High_School_%28Texas%29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Milford_Independent_School_District). But if that happened here, I wouldn't be surprised to see someone re-create the high school article, given our general presumption about the notability of high schools. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington Toll Bridge Authority
Me again you again we meet again huh? heh heh. Okay it's pretty clear i'm a flat out failure with deletion so I might just leave it alone before I wind up with a block. Comments / suggestions please? MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 12:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
File:Trasvina HUD June 2009.jpg missing description details
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 10:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)A new article, Steven Blane, has been created per the discussion on the AFD page. Would you like to review your comment on the matter? Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Woolrich
You'll notice that I deleted it as R2, implausible redirect. "Woolrich, Pennsylvania" is a title for a community, not for a company; we do not redirect names of company towns to the companies. You're free to write a new article about the place, of course, and note that I'm not claiming that it's nonexistent or something like that. Nyttend (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for putting it together; I've slightly expanded it and added it to the county template. Nyttend (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Bob Rupe for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bob Rupe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Rupe until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Apteva (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arxiloxos, I noticed that you were recently taking a look at the NFLPA Game article. I'm actually working on behalf of the NFLPA to make some updates to related Wikipedia articles (proposing and discussing changes only) and they've asked me to look into the one for the NFLPA Game. And you're right, the article certainly is inaccurate. I've posted a summary of what I think has happened to it over at WikiProject:NFL. If you'd like to take a look, and weigh in about how to handle the situation, I'd certainly appreciate it! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Whoops, so sorry about the header! I can't believe I spaced on that. And thanks for the great comment at WP:NFL. I'll follow up there a bit later today. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. I appreciate your raising this, especially since I hadn't gotten around to taking any corrective action on my own. I put a note on the article talk page, in case anyone is watching there. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Cheerleading in the United Kingdom
By saying that Cheerleading in the United Kingdom is offered as a sport, it is greatly implied that it is a sport. In your source that calls it a sport, is titled "Schools axe real sport in the Craze for Cheerleading". This also implies that cheerleading is not a "real sport." It also states the primary purpose of cheerleading to not be competition, but being to egg on sports team. In nearly every definition of sport, this violates a key concept. This therefore states that even by Wikipedia's own definition of a sport that it is not a sport. IN addition, your source cannot be viewed in its entirety by the majority of people, giving only partial info to many. Your bad-faith edits on the page are vandalism and need to be stopped.69.118.168.2 (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Nepal Airlines Flight 555 AFD
You might want to read my reply to your comment....William 22:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Stu Klitenic for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether if Stu Klitenic should be deleted or not. The conversation will be held at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stu Klitenic until a consensus is held and everyone is welcome to join the conversation. However, do not remove the AfD message on the top of the page. Ashbeckjonathan 03:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Following up about NFLPA Collegiate Bowl
Hey there, Arxiloxos. Looks like you're on vacation still, but when for when you return: I’ve now followed up on our previous discussion of the NFLPA Collegiate Bowl article at WP:NFL. I’ve also prepared a draft for an NFLPA Collegiate Bowl article and uploaded it to my userspace; you can view it here. Let me know when you’re around and able to participate in vetting this article and continuing to sort things out, I’d certainly appreciate you weighing in over at Talk:NFLPA Game. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for following up! No worries about the delay. Following the advice of yourself and the other editor commenting, I have updated the "Texas vs The Nation" draft; mind taking a look now? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hey again Arxiloxos, I was just wondering if you thought you might have time to take a look at the NFLPA Game article issues again. I've updated my draft Texas vs The Nation stub with the results from past games, so I think both that and the NFLPA Collegiate bowl draft are ready to go, but let me know if you have any other feedback. (N.B., I've asked Dale Arnett the same.) Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- This has been
Done. 17:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- This has been
Binders full of women
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binders full of women (3rd nomination) Trackinfo (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Pella (company)
Good job with the sourcing on Pella (company). However, of the three sources you added, only one is significant (Forbes), the other two are local coverage and what seems to be a business directory profile. Getting close to surviving AFD, but not quite yet.
This started when I answered an OTRS query from a PR firm representing another company, basically asking why does Pella get an article when they don't. My answer was that the existence of other articles that fail to meet WP:CORP is not a valid reason to include more such articles, and, seeing the abysmal quality of the sourcing in Pella (company), I prodded it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the sources you provided at the AfD for California Supreme Court Judge Jackson Temple. You'll be glad to know I have used them to expand the article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Football club attendances (2006) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Football club attendances (2006) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football club attendances (2006) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GiantSnowman 15:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Grace Inez Crawford
Before you accuse the next person of systematic bias, as you did for me on Grace Inez Crawford, maybe ask yourself whether the claims in the article would be accepted for an article about a current living person. The claim is that she promoted and protected the artistic legacy of her husband, was editor of Art and Industry and later published her memoirs. On top of the tremendous amount of name-dropping in the article and the fact it was clearly written to promote the Bryn Mawr College Library collection, I didn't see a particular reason to keep the article. I refute any accusations of bias. Sionk (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- My concerns about systemic bias are directed at biases that are inherent in the structure of Wikipedia and of our conventional methods of looking for sources, not directed at any particular editor. In this case, especially since the name of the article is different from the name she used for much of her work, the first results of an internet search using the name of the article are minimal, and it's understandable that one might think there's nothing there. So how do Wikipedia's systemic biases affect this article? (i) The subject is old and is more likely to have coverage off the internet; (ii) it relates to areas of human endeavor (like costuming and crafts) that don't get covered very well here; and (iii) it's an article about a early-20th-century woman who is potentially marginalized as a mere supporter of her notable husband, rather than as a partner and notable independent actor; but a minimal amount of Googling reveals that she has work collected at the V&A [2] as well as mentions in a variety of literature, and that should send up flags that the topic may be worthy of saving. Also, I can't go along with the thought that contributions to Wikipedia relating to a distinguished university's academic archive should be equated with and discounted as commercial "promotion". This is not some local band or home remedy maker engaged in self-promotion for profit. I can't imagine how wiping this material out of Wikipedia would improve the state of human knowledge on the subject. Why wouldn't we at least explore a merger to her husband's article, rather than deletion? Above all, I don't think the nearly-invisible WP:PROD process should be used to try to make this kind of material disappear, rather than taking steps to preserve it or to seek input from others in a way that leaves a record for future editors to see. Some of the other editors who pay attention to the proposed deletion pages have recently suggested doing away with PROD altogether. I don't go that far and I think that PROD has many uses. But an article like this one, about a historical figure who's received attention from legitimate academic sources, and where there are various indicia of significance in areas where systemic bias tends to exist on Wikipedia, is not what it should be used for. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. As you say, probably the PROD method was the wrong one in this case. I'm still not sure what the claim of notability is, based on what is said in the article. But I have no vendetta against Crawford so probably won't pursue this further. Sionk (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for input, removing some notability tags
I certainly see what you're saying now. I jumped the gun a little out of frustration with so many two sentence "articles". I have removed the tag for Reneau and also found some resources through the statewide newspapers and expanded the article. I'll work on the other articles you referenced next. Okheric (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Read the full newsletter
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
As you participated in the above AFD, as per the close I have opened up a proper merge discussion at Talk:Dragon Ball and you are welcome to participate.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)
Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world.
Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations...
Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...
Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...
Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...
The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks (Wisconsin articles)
Thanks for this. Does this one look notable to you? It's only claim to fame seems to be that Vince Lombardi attended church there. (Its inclusion in the Packers Heritage Trail is solely because of that.) Aside from the single cite to a newspaper article, I've found no other independent coverage of the church. 71.139.152.220 (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that a 100+ year old local landmark church like this can sustain an article. I wouldn't dismiss the Lombardi connection, either, since it's discussed in multiple news articles [3][4] and books. Of course my opinion is certainly not the last word on the subject. Best,--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Frustrating
Hi-It gets frustrating on Wikipedia. For example I made improvements on the St. Willebrod Catholic Church which did not satisfied an IP/anon editor. I strongly feel IP/anon editors should be required to get an account and they should be prohibited from commenting on deleted articles, notable issues, reporting registered editors for offences like violating the 3RR rule, etc. And then I took the time to add the WP Wisconsin template to new categories only to find out some of the categories were created by a banned editor-sockpuppet and we are getting too many categories as it is. There are times I think about retirement. I know of one registered editor who retired in part due to the IP/anon editors and this registered editor was reported by an IP/anon for violating the 3RR rule. I think of retiring from Wikipedia but as of right now I can't. Thanks-RFD (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Articles nominated for deletion
Dear Arxiloxos,
I saw that you expressed your view about keeping the Channel One Cup (football). I thought maybe you might be interesting in taking part in discussions regarding another page:
Best regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.26.247.147 (talk) 10:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Re:Questia
Yeah, I had a bit of a snag with the edit filter which actually limited the number of emails I could send out. I just became in charge of it a few hours ago and the edit filter throttle me to a mere 9 send outs despite waiting for a long time. The issue is apparently resolved so I will be doing the rest tonight. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Did you apply? I didn't see your name on the list. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Questia/Approved Round 3, Re-Apply, #5 (submitted 20:49, 30 August 2013). Thanks. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm.. Interesting, the Round 3 said it was done before I got assigned, but I only see your name once in the master list. Ah. I see now, you added your name to a list that was already collapsed and sent out.[5] I'll re-add you and send it out for the end of "Round 4" you should have it within the hour. Okay? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sent. Check your mail. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm.. Interesting, the Round 3 said it was done before I got assigned, but I only see your name once in the master list. Ah. I see now, you added your name to a list that was already collapsed and sent out.[5] I'll re-add you and send it out for the end of "Round 4" you should have it within the hour. Okay? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Questia/Approved Round 3, Re-Apply, #5 (submitted 20:49, 30 August 2013). Thanks. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Simon Curtis
Thanks for that. I forgot about that rule, which obviously still applies even though the article is significantly different from the one that was deleted (which I didn't even know about till I started doing the prod). I can't speedy it as it is, so I think I'll just leave it. Deb (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- That article still needs some cleaning up, but it has at least a few real sources now (including a substantive Billboard article as well as some magazine profiles), so I suspect he might be notable at this point. Thanks for the note. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
| For your defense of Lowly Worm from vandalism and many other articles that you defended. gidonb (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC) |
Discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_January_2#Sydney_Uni_Lions
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_January_2#Sydney_Uni_Lions. Ronhjones (Talk) 02:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48
Happy New Year Arxiloxos!
|
|
| Hello Arxiloxos: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 14:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue
Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013
(Sign up for monthly delivery)
Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!
The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:
- Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%
- Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
- New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
- Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
- Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
- Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting
Talkback
Message added 19:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Not sure if you got pinged or not. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 19:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Stay More: The World of Donald Harington
Hello Arxiloxos. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Stay More: The World of Donald Harington, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Enough of a difference from the deleted version that it should go back to AfD, I will restore the PROD though. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
PROD removals
I wasn't aware simply being judged by one person as "not uncontroversial" was a reason to not allow an article to undergo WP:PROD. You didn't bother to address the concern that I listed, but it cannot be helped now. I've begun AFDs.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- As it states at WP:Proposed deletion:
- "Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion. It is a shortcut to the normal deletion review process (AfD), and a fallback for deletion proposals that do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion. PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected."
- We have a bunch of similar lists and there's strong arguments that cop killings are overwhelmingly likely to be notable events. I don't think WP:MEMORIAL applies here, and the editing history of this and similar lists suggests that others agree. So prod is simply not the appropriate way to test the issue. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well I didn't expect opposition. And most of these pages have barely any history to them. It doesn't seem to be a topic we should cover.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I support keeping the museum article, but as you know this article was a copyright violation before being nominated to AFD, so it needs to be started over. If you can do a complete rewrite that removes the entire violation, it would be appreciated. Secret account 17:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
GreenCross1982
I am sorry, i guess i did mistake while editing the page. in the page some links were dead. I was trying to remove dead links and trying to add new information just. I am newly here. Thanks for tip. I will try to be more careful next time.
Thanks