User talk:Σ/Archive/2013/April

Hello Σ. I am just letting you know that I deleted Treason On The Beat, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate   Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's   Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr (  Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare (  Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus (  Keilana (submissions) and   Casliber (submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John (  Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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. 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) J Milburn (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... it is not. Try googling Sex 3.0 if you dont believe this sexual revolution movement exists

I just created a stub about a social / sexual revolutonary movement called Sex 3.0 with the aim of adding detail to the stub over the next day or two.

In order to explain Sex 3.0 you need to explain in detail the Sex 1.0 era (the hunter gatherer era of mankind), the 2.0 era (8,000 BC up to and including the present day) and then 3.0 (present day forwards) and how and why it came about. Its going to take me some time to flesh this page out.

However, I did not get a chance to add detail to the stub because you insta-deleted it and mistakenly labeled it as hoax / vandalism.

Please un-delete it or advise as to why you mistook this for vandalism or a hoax.

I just need a day or two to fully flesh this page out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizza Lord (talk • contribs) 22:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I have forgotten what your article was about. But I think Soap has adequately addressed your concerns already. →Σσς. (Sigma) 07:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, In this edit a long term protection template was removed. It should not have. The page had been protected for long, as semi-protect, then was fully protected for 48 hours to avoid an extra edit war among established editors. When that 48 hour period ended, the bot made the page fully unprotected. Please fix it and make the page semi-protected again. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The bot does not protect or unprotect pages. It only updates the templates to reflect the page's actual protection status.

The page protection was updated to expire at 01:52, 10 April 2013. 12 minutes after it expired, the template was removed. There is nothing wrong with that. When a page's protection is changed, it won't be restored to what it had before. Rather, the protection will just be dropped, and you'll have to ask an admin to restore the old protection settings. →Σσς. (Sigma) 04:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Received a notification of deletion tag for a recently created article. Created this by way of a placemarker to prepare for a more substantial presence. Understand the promotional comment but not sure deleting a simpe, statement about who we are and what we do is fair

Please advise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolpumps (talk • contribs) 07:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Wiki should record all ip address of changing record. It might be also useful for further judgment. Based on Chinese published media, the suspect is released to unsuspected due to timeout. Even through it is about 19 years ago, but wiki should based on truth not someone's request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.67.210 (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Why change this? well, first of all, this bot has been misused to prevent accurate information being displayed in wikipedia. Evidence of this is the wronful omission of Ateret Cohanim from the Patriarch Irineos article. Surely there are other reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.218.96.242 (talk) 07:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe we've interacted before. Are you sure I'm the editor you're looking for? →Σσς. (Sigma) 07:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear, Saraiki is a language, it is not a dialect. Riasti dialect, Shah puri dialect,Multani dialect, Multani language, Thalochi dialect, Thalochi ,Derawali dialect articles. I suggest merging these articles , as the all these are same. And also be Redirected to Saraiki language. Also Jhangvi dialect is dialect of Saraiki. Kindly See these External Links #1 and #2.

• Department of Saraiki, Islamia University, Bahawalpur was established in 1989^[1] and Department of Saraiki, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan^[2] was established in 2006. Saraiki is taught as subject in schools and colleges at higher secondary, intermediate and degree level. Allama Iqbal open university Islamabad,^[3] and Al-Khair university Bhimbir have their Pakistani Linguistics Departments. They are offering M.Phil. and Ph.D in Saraiki. Five TV channels and Ten Radio Stations are Serving Saraiki language.12:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)182.186.116.104 (talk)

I don't think I'm familiar enough with linguistic topics or India to judge the fate of those pages.

You may be interested in the merge discussion at Talk:Punjabi_language. →Σσς. (Sigma) 03:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)