![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The A-class review here currently has two supports, including yours, and Hchc2009 has reviewed, though not yet supported or opposed. This suggests that the article is at about the right standard after the suggested improvements. Things at A-class review have gone a bit quiet, and my last nom at FAC has just been promoted, so I could withdraw from A-class, thanks the reviewers and go straight for FAC. However, for all I know this may be an unspeakable breach of etiquette. I'd welcome your advice on how to proceed. Thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
As you are listed as a member of Operation Majestic Titan, you are receiving this message to notify you that a new Titan's Cross nomination has been opened. You are therefore cordially invited to iVote or offer your opinion on the nomination. Sincerely, TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Dank. I've been working on the Jimi Hendrix article for about a year now and I think it's almost ready for FAC. Hendrix served 13 months in the Army, with the 101st Airborne while stationed at Fort Campbell Kentucky (May 1961–June 1962). I know there are several pictures of him in uniform, but I cannot seem to locate one that I can be sure is a PD military image. Can you provide any assistance or advice? Thanks! GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 22:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
You may be aware of the current discussions regarding conflicts of interest with paid editors. (See Template:Paid Editing Parallel Proposals for a list of the current proposals under discussion.) One of the proposals, WP:Paid editing policy proposal, has been refined a couple of times, but unfortunately in a way that split the conversation across multiple talk pages, which has caused dissension, as can be seen in Wikipedia talk:Commercial editing#We are going about this the wrong way.. Would you be interested in leading a discussion, similar to how you led the discussion in WP:RFA2013, to build a consensus view on any new guidelines or policies that the community would like to enact on this topic? isaacl ( talk) 02:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Copying the post I just made to WP:AN: This is just a heads-up that I closed the fifth of five simultaneous open vote/discussions on paid editing (six if you count the one above!), despite the fact that I entered a vote (now removed) in the first one. My excuse is that I'm actually neutral on the larger question that's been spread out among several pages, and I've said as much. I was only in opposition to having a vote before a discussion had taken place on all the relevant issues. As always, feedback is welcome ... and additional closers would be even more welcome. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Dank, In order to make progress, I think we need to close some of the proposals. Having 5 articles open is diverting reviewing resources. I suggest that we close the following three proposals.
DavidinNJ (
talk) 22:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dank! Recently, I've been working on the article Mladen Stojanović. It has turned out to be quite a big one, though mostly based on Serbian-language sources. If you think that it is a material for a quality status, I would appreciate if you copy-edited it (smooth running, summary style, etc). Vladimir ( talk) 15:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, just in case you aren't already aware, note there are two existing WikiProjects based on the stick and carrot approach: WP:WikiProject Integrity and WP:WikiProject Cooperation. I'm not sure if there is a need for more WikiProjects on this topic. isaacl ( talk) 14:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. This is a brief note to let you know about an update to the Main FAQ (the addition of a large table of Components of the discussion system), and also to specifically request your feedback on two items: our sandbox release plan, and a draft of the new contributors survey. We look forward to reading your input on these or other topics - Flow can only get better with your ideas! – Quiddity (WMF) ( talk) 19:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Gave it a shot, but boy, did they shoot back. :) When you get a chance, could you take a look and see what you can suggest as far as fixes for some of the more complex problems? (e.g., lead paragraphs apparently need major reworking) Simpler fixes such as adding requested citations, I think I can do on my own. Particularly bummed that the whole thing came and went without my ever knowing it was going on (and that they took that to indicate loss of interest, when in fact I had been checking my page quite regularly and the SM page fairly often but didn't know they don't put anything there!). Lawikitejana ( talk) 08:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
HI Dank. There are a lot of claims and arguments being made in the course of the many many discussions around a COI policy, and very little of it, is based on data. It is hard to come to agreement on policy if we are not looking at the same set of facts. I opened a thread at Jimbo's talk page asking who knows if there is any data about the extent of the paid advocacy on Wikipedia. Seems like there is not much. But the discussion turned up two articles, this one - a survey of PR professionals which is super illuminating; and this one by a Danish business-communications group, valuable mostly for the review of the literature in the intro. Do you think it would be useful and or possible to open a discussion or project trying to understand the extent of paid advocacy (heck maybe including tendentious editing of all kinds) in WIkipedia, and possibly also how the public perceives the "purity"/"corruption" of Wikipedia (what is at stake), and once we have gathered some facts, see if we can build a policy around them? In other words, start from the ground up instead of working top down? Sorry if this is crazy or something. Jytdog ( talk) 02:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey Dank, I know you're busy but I'm a bit on the desperate side. Can you help out with this week's featured content? As you saw on WT:MHCOORD, Ctdew is going to be busy with real life. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You're being contacted as you're listed as an EdwardsBot user.
MassMessage has been deployed to all Wikimedia wikis. For help using the new tool, please check out its help page or drop a note on Meta-Wiki.
With over 400,000 edits to Wikimedia wikis, EdwardsBot has served us well; however EdwardsBot will no longer perform local or global message delivery after December 31, 2013.
A huge thanks to Legoktm, Reedy, Aaron Schulz and everyone else who helped to get MassMessage deployed. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Copyeditor's Barnstar |
Many thanks for the copyedit of Spanish conquest of Petén for the Milhist ACR; the article is certainly better as a result, and thanks for the support at FAC - it just made FA. Best regards, Simon Burchell ( talk) 11:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC) |
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
But then I am a worthless piece of crap on Wikipedia that rapes animals according to some. So...whatever.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 05:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I confess I'm a bit disappointed with the closing sentences of your recent statement in the conflict of interest discussion, as I had hoped (in accordance with my request) that you'd take a role in leading a structured discussion, as you had for Wikipedia:PC2012. All the same, I still appreciate your willingness to be involved and contribute to the discussion! isaacl ( talk) 17:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves | |
By the order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, Parsecboy, Cam, TheEd17, Dank, and Saberwyn are hereby awarded this Chevron with Oak Leaves award for the roles that each played in assisting with the creation of the 63-article Featured Topic Battlecruisers of the World. Since each of you have an equal claim to an award for the years long effort that they put into the total project by working on their corner of it and each of you has made contributions of truly incredible quality or importance in the area of military history, culminating in the completing the single largest FT to date on Wikipedia and passing a milestone by bringing an entire classification of ships - battlecruisers in this case - up to GA-Class, A-Class, or FA-Class. As Majestic Titan editors, you are collectively being recognized for this outstanding accomplishment with this shared WikiChevron with Oak Leaves Award, the first of its kind to be award to a group of editors. Congratulations to each of you for your outstanding achievements, and keep up the good work! For the coordinators, TomStar81 ( Talk) 07:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Dan, could I trouble you to delete this out-of-process FAC nom page? Congrats on your team Chevrons with Oak Leaves by the way...! Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 12:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey Dank :). As mentioned on the Milhist coordinators talkpage, we've opened Flow up for community testing. I'd be really grateful if you could hammer on the system (if you haven't already!), let me know any bugs you find, and leave a note at the 'first release' page explaining what you, as a member of Wikiproject Military History, would need to see to be okay with it being deployed on that wikiproject's talkpage.
Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 20:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
(As an aside; I'm looking forward to being back in NC in September or so. We should grab lunch or something!)
One point that occasionally has been raised, not by me, is that one way of dealing with the COI/paid editing issue for corporate articles is to strengthen/tighten the notability standards for companies and organizations. That hasn't been raised in the most recent discussion. I just wanted to bring that to your attention, as you structure your questionnaire or formulate the discussion going forward. Arguably Wikipedia has become something of a directory of small companies of marginal notability. Tightening the standards can attack that situation for both paid and unpaid articles alike, and do so in an evenhanded fashion. Coretheapple ( talk) 21:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Re: "alt text not required for FAC"—is this spelled out somewhere? All I see at WP:WIAFA is #2 "It follows the style guidelines", and the guideline for images says: "Alt text takes the place of an image for text-only readers, including those using screen readers. Images should have an alt attribute added to the |alt= parameter. See WP:ALT for more information." "Should" isn't "must", but I would like to see that the editor was at least aware of the guideline and chose consciously to disregard it, as the editors of Nigersaurus did when they insisted on violating WP:IMAGELOCATION. Curly Turkey ( gobble) 22:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Dank,
Because of your prior interest in a similar article, you are being invited to review Rudolf Berthold.
Georgejdorner ( talk) 07:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
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 for the mention at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-12-04/Featured content, much appreciated!
I had a question about your choice of headline:
Why did you choose the censored term, "F*&!" -- instead of the name of the documentary itself, which was simply "Fuck" ?
Just curious,
— Cirt ( talk) 21:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:
Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt ( talk) 21:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
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 15:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for helping out again this week, Dank. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Art & Feminism Edit-a-Thon - You are invited! | |
---|---|
Hi Dank! The first ever
Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, February 1, 2014 across the United States and Canada - including Washington, D.C.! Wikipedians of all experience levels are welcome to join! Any editors interested in the intersection of feminism and art are welcome. Experienced editors will be on hand to help new editors.
SarahStierch (
talk) 06:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
|
![]() |
Happy Holidays | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC) |
![]() |
A very happy Christmas and New Year to you! |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
Merry Christmas and best wishes for a happy, healthy and productive 2014! |
Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC) |