User talk:He to Hecuba

Please feel free to say anything you like about me and my edits. I may disagree.

Hi. When you recently edited Gregory of Nyssa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vatican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I was admiring your great work on Gregory of Nyssa, which made me think you should sign up for the 2012 Wikicup. It is a friendly competition that awards points for good articles, featured content, and other markers of editing skill. Gregory of Nyssa would give you double points (60), because it is on over 20 other Wikipedias. You simply just have to list your name here. Hope to see you there! Warm regards, Ruby 2010/2013 17:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear it. Good luck! Ruby 2010/2013 05:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially began at the start of 2012 (UTC), and so you are free to claim any content from after that time. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my gosh! Thank you so much! I haven't taken a detailed look at the comments and suggestions yet, but I so appreciate your taking the time in making the review and pointing out areas for improvement!--Amadscientist (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be making some changes in the coming days but wanted to be sure and let you know any further comment form my replies is appreciated.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Walter Woon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Singaporean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is Grapple X (submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Jivesh boodhun (submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.

• 12george1 (submissions) was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
• Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
• Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your first good article. Keep up the good work! Ruby 2010/2013 23:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, He to Hecuba!

It was really helpful of you to you to upload File:Vital FA.png. However, we need to properly format the image license information in order to keep and use new images.

If you can edit the description and add one of these templates, that would be great. If you're not sure how or would like some help, please ask us at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you.

Thanks again! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need a template:Information form as well, which must include which files on Commons you used. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Saint-clement-of-alexandria.jpeg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Clement of Alexandria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dionysius (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, He to Hecuba. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Peer review/Gregory of Nyssa/archive1.
Message added 18:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. I have given some comments. Frankly, the article does not seem to be too close to FA in its current state. When you address those comments (even after the peer review, may be 6 months from now), let me know. I would like to give more suggestions to improve the article. It is definitely a good effort and on the right path to FA. 1 suggestion: When choosing FA models, choose articles that have been passed recently (may be last 2 years) as the quality of FAs has dramatically changed over time. Let me know if you need any other help Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the note. If you feel that the redirect is useful, you can always consider recreating it. However, I'm not certain that it would get used all that much. It was deleted as part of cleanup after a serial vandal. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'll recreate it - he's known by a lot of names, although this one is pretty uncommon. --He to Hecuba (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While looking over your contributions I apparently reverted an edit of yours as vandalism, even though I had no intention of reverting anything. Feel free to slap me with a trout.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hope we can work together again in the future! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my username, whilst I don't think it needs changing (and it seems the administrators agree that I do no have to) I accept that some might find it confronting. I have discovered how to change my signature and have used this function to modify how my name is displayed when I sign. Perhaps this is better?

On an unrelated matter, I see from your userpage that you are interested in Clement of Alexandria. I remember reading about him when I was an undergraduate. Fascinating fellow. Regards, --Lw (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, He to Hecuba. You have new messages at Lustywench's talk page.
Message added 11:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Lw (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Clement of Alexandria, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Heretic and Fear of God (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First thank you for taking the time to review the article, I will do as you have suggested to bring the article up to GA status. Regarding the genocide question, I recently found a source which says it has never officially been called such, yet a large amount of sources do call it genocide. What would be the best was to present this? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid mentioning it in the lead. The events are almost universally considered war crimes, and you can mention the "genocide or not" dispute in the main body of the article (i.e. simply state it's not officially considered a genocide, but as you say, it is termed one by some sources). Do remember that you're writing about the specifics of rape, so you only need to write about this to extent required to contextualize it. --He to Hecuba (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then I shall have to change the change I just made :o) Thank you, would it be OK to ask for further advice along the way? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I would strongly suggest getting a native English speaker to copyedit the article (I don't really have time atm). --He to Hecuba (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello again, I have expanded the article quite a bit since your previous review. If you have some time would you look over it again please? I would also like to remove the POV tag, an article cannot reach GA with one of those on it I suspect. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever heard of a proxy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.167.8 (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review The Rage Against God, and for improving the article as well. Cheers, Jprw (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the bot will automatically pick up your !vote on the RfA.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I was a bit confused as to why it didn't automatically update. --He to Hecuba (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It takes the bot a while to cycle through. I can't remember what the exact cycle time is, but I think it runs every half hour or so. Thus, it might take a half an hour or more for an individual !vote to be counted by the bot.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. --He to Hecuba (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I can most likely get the copyright release from the Grand Lodge but it will take a couple days. Meanwhile, if I go to that trouble and it is deleted anyway, I will not be happy. Eric Cable  |  Talk  19:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your last note on my talk page. I will email that guy but in my expierence he usually takes a couple days to respond to such things. I am now going to add to the discussion on the delete discussion. Eric Cable  |  Talk  20:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, B^e——C_ritical 22:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For consistently making valuable contributions and helpful improvements to the encyclopedia. Cheers! —Eustress talk 18:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch on the unsourced article on Anwar Farrukhabadi. I'm seeing a lot of these random articles from India and Pakistan that are uncited. Not sure if they are copy/paste or just written on the fly. Keep up the good work. --Fraulein451 (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like your username, love your work.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

=)... thanks...I'm gonna have to paste the whole speech on my userpage now! He to Hecuba (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best check with Mooney that it is out of copyright first, at least in Florida where it is my understanding the WMF servers are located. Florida has has some odd laws... and some odd residents, too. Rogue and peasant slave58 (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, Will's been dead a good four hundred years or so....and it would qualify as fair use as a quotation, I suppose ? ;) --He to Hecuba (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Shirt58]: May it please this Honorable Court, I read the affidavit of He to Hecuba, a natural person, sworn on inst month at...

[Her Honour]: Meh.

:-) --Shirt58 (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please read WP:BRD and cease blindly reverting editors. It is important to revert yourself in order to avoid the appearance of edit warring. I invite you to join the discussion on the Talk page.– Lionel ^(talk) 10:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due, your account is barely 1 month old. You would not generally be considered a regular. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you've edited under another account? In that case you may qualify for "regular" status. Tell me about your previous editing. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your great work on Saints articles- Keep up the good work! ♫GoP♫TCN 13:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, He to Hecuba. You have new messages at Ks0stm's talk page.
Message added 21:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{admin-help}} I am currently finding it difficult to edit, because I am unable to find a proxy which is not blocked on Wikipedia (government firewall, closed proxy I was using has been shut down). Would it be possible for an admin to unblock a proxy for me or point me to one which works ? I have requested the IP-block-exempt flag twice now, but I am told that because I have been able to find proxies in the past which allow me to edit, I do not need the flag, although it would be very convenient for me as I have spent three hours today trying to find a functioning proxy to no avail. You can see from all my contributions that I am a trustable user. --He to Hecuba (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason not to give you IPBE, but I will leave this open for a bit so that other admins can chime in just in case I missed something. --Chris (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. He to Hecuba (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Chris, but can you point us to your previous requests for IPBE? Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were e-mail requests, I've shared them with another admin. who's reviewing this. Thanks. He to Hecuba (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The user has informed me that the previous two requests were via email to the unblock-en-l list, and forwarded copies of them to me. The first request was made before the user had an account, and was denied because of a lack of editing history; the second was denied when he had only been editing for two weeks with 268 edits, which "does not establish [him] as a long term editor", and furthermore, "[he has] edited multiple times every day since [his] first request, so even if [he] were a long term and well established editor, it would be hard to see a need for IP block exemption". For comparison, the first request was made on Jan 15, and the second on Feb 2. I'm reasonably confident given this user's contributions that IPBE will be used in good faith, but this is an area I don't usually work in, so leaving it open for another admin to grant/deny. — The Earwig ^(talk) 00:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done IP block exemption granted. --MuZemike 00:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. --He to Hecuba (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note songs are not disambiguated by the word "single." The article was moved back to Blue (LeAnn Rimes song) from single just minutes before you moved it yet again. I suppose an admin now has to undo your edits. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I was just about to put a requested move to Blue (Bill Mack song), but will have to wait now. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the history here you will see the previous move by User:Kww, also you are wrong, song articles are about songs, NOT singles, and if you had read the talkpage you would have noted that there should not be two articles about the same song, per WP:SONGCOVER. I have dropped a note onto Kww's talkpage to revert your move and then I shall proceed with the requested move. Obviously if the community doesn't agree with me, I will have to live with it, but having already been accused of vandalism, wasting a whole Saturday over this article I shall be pleased never to see it again! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words, today has been unnecessarily fraught, I was happy to leave old "single" disambig as a suggested merge for community comment. You just beat me with your RfD over my RM. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, you are suggesting that two different articles should exist for the same song (even though only one version would pass WP:NSONGS). Not only is this against the guidelines, but I could provide evidence of literally 100s of songs which have been merged. Many of which are where both versions would probably pass NSONGS. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your excellent suggestions. I've worked through them and I believe I've addressed all of them, and fixed a couple other little things I found along the way as well. The article is ready for you to review my changes and let me know if you believe any other work is necessary. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a cursory glance, it looks much better. I'll review it properly this afternoon. Thanks. --He to Hecuba (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your efforts to review this--your suggestions have made it clearly a better article. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was your hard work which made this article better ! --He to Hecuba (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Edgeborough School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prep school (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- your GA reviews are a little on the short side, and so this is creating issues with regards to their eligibility for WikiCup points. I'm not meaning to say that they are poor reviews, but the rules as written do specify that shorter reviews will not be eligible. Further, second opinions on good article reviews are not eligible for points; only carrying out the review yourself. Again, this is not to say that second opinions generally or your second opinions specifically are not highly valuable, but there are many things which are highly valuable which are not eligible for points. As such, I am removing Talk:The Rage Against God/GA2, Talk:Early life of L. Ron Hubbard/GA1 and Talk:Love of Christ/GA1 from your submissions page. This shouldn't affect your chances of getting through to the next round, and, again, I'm not meaning to challenge the value of the work you've done, so I hope this isn't something that will bother you too much. if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]