This 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.

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC) 00:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

...again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You said work with someone to improve an article. I will do that. Tell me who .. tell me what article. Chedzilla ( talk) 02:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I feared my idea wouldn't work that well in practice. I guess it is actually better to work on stuff you enjoy working on first, then if you need help, to find someone willing to help with it. And for this to work, the other person has to be willing to work with you, and you both have to agree on the article to work on. There are some suggestions at User talk:RexxS. One red-linked article, or a red-link for this madcap idea of mine, which I've called 'collaboration challenge'. The real trick, though is have the discipline to keep working on article content and minimise (not avoid) the social chit-chat and the drama. A view that makes me somewhat unpopular with some, for some reason. Really, though, I need to do some stuff tomorrow (Monday and Tuesday) before the working week starts again (4-day weekend in the UK), and stay away from here for those two days (unless I get done what I need to do), and then focus on organising some article work I've had planned for a while. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

AGK [•] 12:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's igordebraga ( submissions), who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's Grapple X ( submissions), whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's Muboshgu ( submissions), with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.

A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. As ever, 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) 10:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

My daughter is fond of pointing out that people often use the word "ironic" when, sometimes, the right term is "coincidence". This is one of those cases - I started composing a post, using the word ironic, but decided it was really a coincidence.

I decided to comment to Silver_seren about an NLT issue, and one of my points was that the distinction between civil and criminal wasn't as explicit as it might be, in the policy or the talk page, and after making that observation, I see you've emphasized that very point.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I did notice your comment on the Arb page, and I'm not ignoring it. I have a busy day ahead, but I will get back to you ASAP, hopefully this evening. — Ched :  ?  12:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't want to interrupt that thread, as you've made some really interesting points, enough that I need to think about them and read them more than once. I think you and I may share a similar goals and perspectives. Our experiences are very different here, so our ideas may be different at first, but you have really got me thinking. I've been here a while, but only 10 weeks into being an admin, and finding my perspective changing radically by what I see, both good and bad. But I am filled with hope. I really would like you to look at that new project Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention because a large part of the reason it was started was because of some of these ideas. It is barely complete enough to even be alpha, but it could use some leadership from established admins who have a balanced approach. I'm not talking about committing a lot of time as much as joining to share good ideas and offering your perspective. There is real contention between admins and content creators, more so that in years passed, but I think this can be bridged, and allow us to continue building our base of quality editors. We lose too many to simple misunderstandings on the talk pages during these blocks, and in other misunderstandings as well. No offense will be taken if you aren't interested, but I think you really could help make a difference with just a little effort there, in shaping what it can become, and providing calm, rational ideas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll try and take a closer look at some point, but one of the problems I run into is that when I get more involved in things, I realise why I stopped doing that: I find I don't have the time to do things justice right now. I comment, and do some article work, but more than this is difficult until I have more time available again. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

We met at Arbitration/Clarification and amendment, and you have a good reputation among editors I have a lot of respect for, so I was wondering if you'd have the time or sufficient interest to look at this situation. I won't be in the least offended if you'd rather not. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 12:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No time, though I'm vaguely aware of the issues. Good luck with that. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries. It's not a big deal. More a symptom of an underlying malady, really. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 05:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that I made some progress at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Biography_articles_without_WPBiography_tags. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 12:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you have listed yourself as a peer review volunteer interested in copyediting articles, would you like to support the quest to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia by giving a thorough review of the short, but interesting, article about Ya Kun Kaya Toast, a multinational kaya toast chain and Singaporean cultural icon? Thanks! 谢谢！Terima kasih! நன்றி! -- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 10:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, but not enough time right now. Hope you manage to find someone willing to do a review. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

...is that many of the very people you try to help are the ones that bite your hand. I'm pretty immune to that, which is likely a good thing and comes in handy for the task. I wouldn't take any of that personal. You just happened to walk in the path of frustration and got hit by it, you didn't cause it. Pessimism is all too common, and you have to let it roll of your back like water on a duck. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not so much the conversation with Malleus (that's par for the course, had many conversations like that), it was more the unexpected interjection from another editor. Though I've sometimes commented unexpectedly on other people's talk pages in the past. It was also the real-time nature of the thread. I've been so used to threads where the replies are one-a-day, that I'd almost forgotten that it is possible to have real-time talk page threads on Wikipedia (the closest to that for me would be chats in Gmail, as I've never ventured near IRC). It's the difference between a considered reply once a day, and several replies the same evening. It does make a difference for me. When I was more active (4-5 years ago), I remember I had a tendency to post very long (discursive) comments in some discussions, trying to give a rounded view of the situation. That sort of thing seems to work better for me than the short bursts of comments that fills up some ANI threads (for example). If people slowed down a bit and gathered their thoughts, some things might not deteriorate the way they do (at ANI, for example). But in the worse threads, you get people rushing to say their bit before everyone else, and bemoaning the edit conflicts without actually looking in any great detail at what has been happening. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Carcharoth, reading your response on M's talk page, I just thought I would check your page...and then your talk page. I'm glad I did because I want to make it clear that what I said has little to do with you. I'm betting that you are a fine editor and one that I'd be very happy to work with. Perhaps we have a lot in common because as I said, by nature I am an optimist as well.

It would help a lot if we could talk face to face and I could explain that I am so tired of working for change through political activism and have come to the point that I no longer have any interest what so ever in working within the system for change. I'm from Maine and my group of friends and I organized the protests against our entry into the Iraq war...and here we are 10 years later with not only over a million civilian deaths but at war with several surrounding countries as well. My daughter was one of the workers that worked tirelessly for Obama's election, and just look at how that turned out. All of my friends and I have now dropped out of the system and work for change through our personal lives and the choices we make at a grassroots level.

I see the Wikipedia in the same way that I view my political stance since Obama's election: don't expect to change the system by working through the system. My career (I'm now retired) has been in the medical field and I don't know anyone that has any hope for change working within the system. That doesn't mean that I don't have high regards for those that continue to work for change--I suppose that that's what I'd be doing if I was locked into the system too.

Oh well, all this talk and I don't know that I've said anything worthwhile or explained myself in any way. At any rate, it seems to me that I believe that you are most likely a fine editor and Dennis Brown's efforts are to be applauded but I have reached a stage that very closely matches where M is at. If I felt that I was alone in my estimation of what has happened here, then I'd really get depressed and perhaps quit editing. We all look for where we "fit" in our personal lives and it's not surprising that we do the same at WP. That is why I am grateful that, quite by accident, I happened to run across M's talk page at about the same time that I became so disillusioned with WP. It is good that you and Dennis continue to work within the system for change. But it is not bad that some of us believe that you are not being as helpful as you may think--in the same way that you do not believe that we are being helpful.

For example, it really helped me a lot after reading some sort of (very long) happy horseshit about the real circumstances that led to blocks that M followed with a post merely saying, "You really are in fantasy land" (or something to that effect). I really do need to see that sort of stuff. It's what keeps me going. Gandydancer ( talk) 02:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain, and no worries. I wouldn't personally make any connection between national and international politics, political activism, and systematic problems on Wikipedia, but I can see why you might be frustrated at the difficulty of effecting change. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. As I read my own note to you, even to me it sounds a little screwy. Some conversations are too difficult for a short note between two people that don't know each other. I appreciate your willingness to just let it drop. I entered that conversation on M's page on impulse and I'm sorry that I did. Gandydancer ( talk) 21:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Carcharoth - first my apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I'm not sure if you wanted a response from me regarding the comments on the AC page, but I'm fully willing to offer them. Perhaps it's because everyone holds you in such high esteem that I want to justify my own comments to you, but I do honestly believe in what I said. By the very nature of our project (an encyclopedia) we tend to attract a vast number of editors who are in high-school or early college years. That is a good thing in many aspects - but there is an impulsiveness to youth that needs guided in my view. Granted that we can not know the age of any editor due to the anonymity of our project, but we can see the maturity in various posts. My point in the AC post was that there is a large amount of "baiting" and "taunting" which is rampant in our project. This often leads our more senior editors to respond in a rather unfriendly fashion. Due to our "be nice" policies, experienced adults are called on the carpet by "just here for a bit" young editors who quote CIV rather than understanding the spirit of our project. Don't get me wrong - there are a ton of great young folks here that are fantastic -- Julian C, Jon D., Anon Dis, Steve Z, Peter S, Coffee, and I'm sure a dozen others.

I know I'm a crotchety cynical old man. And perhaps I'm out of touch with the reality of the project, but I honestly feel that if we're to move forward - then there needs to be a strong guiding hand that says "you can not provoke our established editors". There are people here who have EARNED respect, and if we allow fly-by-night accounts to poke people into a response that's less than apologetic, and then chastise the truly valuable contributor - then we condemn the project to failure.

On a closing note? ... I hear you play chess. If you know an online venue ... I'd love to play a game. — Ched :  ?  06:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone holds me in high esteem... (and I'm not always sure why some people did in the first place), but thanks for posting these thoughts. Impulsiveness of youth? Youth can be vindictive as well. Maybe there should be a 'crotchety old git' badge people can wear to be protected from the slings and arrows of the yoof? If there were to be a firmer guiding hand, it would have to be aware of the mis-communications that can arise from the less socially aware, the less empathic, and the well-meaning. Sometimes that can come across as baiting when it isn't. It is hard work keeping an online environment on an even keel. It can be a full-time job in parts of Wikipedia. Maybe what is needed is people set apart from the rest, and trained to mediate and moderate in such an environment, and to do so full-time. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Chess? Who told you about that! I do play a bit here and there...

I have to walk away from my "admin" account .. and there's much on my mind; but I do want to talk to you. Please allow me some time to gather my thoughts .. and find a direction I want to go. I have a huge amount of respect for you sir ... and I'd really appreciate your input. The "chess" thing comes from the fact that I've exchanged email with a former Arb. .. Rlevse .. who speaks very highly of you. Hope to continue a conversation. All my best. Chedzilla ( talk) 22:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It can be difficult to pin me down to a conversation, as I tend to flit in and out at times. I do one-to-one discussions better by e-mail, but where-ever you want to continue the conversation is fine with me. It just isn't likely to lead to much unless it eventually moves to a venue where more people take part and then you find a group of people with the time to work together and move forward on some issue and work to improve things. If you don't have that critical mass, things just peter out again. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Noticed this comment: "Reading archives is not pleasant. Seems the bots archive by last edit not by how they may have been arranged on a page". When I run into that, it can be easier to load up the page version before archiving and read that. Really, archives should include a list of diffs showing the removals that created the archives. But not sure if any bot is set up to do that. Carcharoth ( talk) 04:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Nod I do that too : )

But when dealing with noticeboard pages like AN and its supages or VP and its subpages, it takes a long while to go through the edit history, even if I have a particular date (edit) in question to look for. (I'll sometimes change the "per page" to 5000 to try to speed things up : )

Just out of curiosity, what brought that edit to your attention? - jc37 20:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A little birdie told me that you're a bit of a legal eagle, and suggested that I should solicit your input about an article I'm preparing to take to GAN on a High Court judge, Melford Stevenson. He was quite an interesting character, as perhaps all judges are, but if you don't have the time or inclination then no worries. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Not really enough time to take more than a brief look, but will leave comments on the article talk page after catching up with a few other things. I'm also not any sort of legal eagle (not sure which birdie told you that!). I'd suggest Ironholds for legal stuff, though I'm sure there are others around as well. I did, amusingly, have reason to use the Tichbourne case page recently while looking up some things about that (was very helpful in some respects, but had to go look some other things up elsewhere as they were too obscure to make it into the article); I think the only other legal case page I commented on at any length was the Eastbourne manslaughter one. Carcharoth ( talk) 06:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors: Wikimania 2012; special projects note Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Australian 25th Battalion Interview: Article writers discuss buildings and fortifications Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports on a weekend workshop

We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees Grapple X ( submissions) in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees Muboshgu ( submissions) in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's Ruby2010 ( submissions) follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.

Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, 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) 22:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).

The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.

I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 20:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey all :)

A couple of new things.

First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.

On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right. It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). We'll be holding two office hours sessions to discuss the tool and improvements to it; the first is at 19:00 UTC on 14 August, and the second at 23:00 on the 15th. Both will be in #wikimedia-office as always. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 15:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)