Jump to content

User:The ed17/Archives/74

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiCup 2014 February newsletter

[edit]

And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:

  1. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
  2. Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
  3. United States WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 4

[edit]
Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014

News for February from your Wikipedia Library.

Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers

Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement

American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia

Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th

Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias

Read the full newsletter


MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from January 2014

[edit]
Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for January 2014, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 09:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice Timing

[edit]

You just moved the page on the Nezamozhnik at the same time I was making an edit! Looks like my note on the talk page worked! --Noha307 (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Haha, sort of, yes. While I don't have the time to help out, you could try looking at Rowher's Chronology, Whitley's Destroyers of World War II, and Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

FC this week

[edit]

Except for FP descriptions FCR is done for this week including a WikiCup update. --Pine✉ 05:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Pine, you're awesome. Thank you very much. As I said in the newsroom, publishing will be late Friday or early Saturday UTC. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian friends

[edit]

Hello, you removed my edit at the Ukrainian page.

So what happened is that I got a message from some Ukrainian editors who knew they guy. They got a WMF grant to cover the Olympics in Sochi and now they are scared to go there. They asked me if I knew anyone who would interview them about being a Wikipedian for Ukrainian Wikipedia. They also profess to have been friends with the deceased. Their English is not good. I hardly talked with them. I told them I would post their message around. I suppose there is no reason to think they are in danger but I have no idea.

Of course I felt strange posting a message there but for the sake of people who die in the course of doing Wikipedia I was persuaded. I have no problems with you removing the message and taking responsibility for this. Just getting the request to do something freaked me out a lot. I hate to be callous to people whose friend just got shot but I do not know what to do with a request like that and I do not like the thought of that boy dying even to be in my head. I apologize for dropping this on you but that Wikipedia article was an obvious place to put a comment, and I felt like I had little power to put a message anywhere else that the right people could find it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) BR, depending on the depth of the interview and their knowledge of Russian (which seems to be decent enough, at least according to the userpages I checked out), I'd be willing to either play interpreter or full-on interview them. I'm not that good at formulating questions, tough. Meh. Buggie111 (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Buggie111 Contact them as I posted in the deleted edit and if they bite I will help more on your request and at your direction. I have no idea what I can do and do not like the prospect of working at this in a fruitless way, so I would really like to turn responsibility over to someone else. I am happy to support, and happy to have been asked, but this is too heavy for me to manage myself and I did not know what else to do but post in the most obvious places. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Done, mate. Waiting for a response. Buggie111 (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: Hey, BR—no worries. I just didn't want a comment in the obituary section that started "attention journalists", as it seemed disrespectful to me. We can, of course, interview them for the Signpost (and if that happens, I'll be happy to draw up questions with you, Buggie!), but I'm not sure if that's what they're looking for. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Ed, I suggest great restraint in censoring Signpost comment pages. Given how aggressive N&N has been I think we should allow others to have their say in almost all cases. I would not have removed BR's comment. If he had inserted it in the article text that would have been different. --Pine✉ 08:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: February 2014

[edit]


Headlines
  • France report: National Archives; Sèvres & mass uploads; Wikipedians in the European Parliament
  • Germany report: Claim open culture, again and again
  • India report: National Museum, New Delhi, India (January 2-5, 2014)
  • Netherlands report: Art and Feminism; Wikipedian in Residence; War memorials
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 14:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: February 2014

[edit]


Headlines
  • France report: National Archives; Sèvres & mass uploads; Wikipedians in the European Parliament
  • Germany report: Claim open culture, again and again
  • India report: National Museum, New Delhi, India (January 2-5, 2014)
  • Netherlands report: Art and Feminism; Wikipedian in Residence; War memorials
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 14:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

[edit]

FC this week

[edit]

I'm busy enough this week that I probably won't have time to write FC. Can you ask Herald or Crisco to do it? --Pine✉ 05:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Adam's started it; I'll try to get the FAs and FLs done myself (I have free time today! What a weird feeling.) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I could do FPs, if you want? Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
That would be awesome, if you have the time! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I've done all but two descriptions, and image selection. Let's not do another ship image, though - we've had one the last two weeks. The Euromaidan one is timely, and, if you agree, I would like to showcase our Ukrainian Wikipedians; as for the rest, maybe Dominostein, Drill instructor, or the Windmills? Your call. Think we have to have one from that massive set, though. Oh, and I'd leave out the star chart - my favourite one from that set - Auriga - is coming up soon. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
How do those descriptions look? Euromaiden would be a good lead image, and I'm a bit partial to the archer image, if that's alright. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. Though we'll need to rename it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Over to you for finishing up. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Featured content

[edit]

I have an idea for a featured content April 1st, but it *could* go horribly wrong if we don't write it very carefully. The joke is that I'd write it as someone who works in featured pictures, and show ridiculous, over the top bias towards that, like I'd talk solely about the images in the articles, and so on. If done right, it'll be funny, if done wrong, it'll annoy people.

Of course, the week after, we might want to cover the same material again, properly. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that people would recognize the intended hilarity. :/ Could we just mess with the short descriptions, similar to the TFA? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Could work. Although we might want to provide a second, more sober version, linked from the bottom. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think so—if we're entirely accurate with the blurbs, we should be able to get away with it. ;-) Also, to pass the word along, Tony1 thinks that your "photographic talent shows in the selection and arrangement" of the photos in "Featured content" this week! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
That's very kind of him. Though I wonder what he'll say if you let me get away with the indulgent gigantic Korean map this week. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Heh. But seriously, once articles and lists are finished, I'll play with images. Might move the Korean map to the side, lose Auriga, put up Aquarius (I like Auriga more, but aspect ratios count) and then see what I can find in the articles and lists. I would like there to be at least one... Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Up to you, I don't mind whatever you choose! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

[edit]

Belle knox

[edit]

I didnt agree with your closing so I made a DRV. Beerest 2 Talk page 14:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Your close on this article was blatantly improper. To claim that the opinion of a small minority is "consensus" is such a distortion of language, policy, and logic that you should reverse the decision, and if not you have no business being an admin. Everyking (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's fair. Even admins are considered people(!), so even if they did make a mistake, let's treat them civilly, even if we disagree with their decision. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Everyking, there's absolutely no need to be hostile here. Wikipedia's culture is toxic enough without you making comments like that. Sportfan, we must respectfully disagree, but I appreciate your much calmer demeanor. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the culture might also benefit if we could count on admins to properly and honestly assess an AfD discussion. What does it mean when an AfD clearly says one thing, but then an admin comes in and says the opposite? As it happens, I looked up her article because I read another news article about her—she's still making the news for various things, even though the "one event" happened several weeks ago—and I was flabbergasted to see it no longer existed. I remembered that the AfD seemed like a slam dunk in favor of keeping, so I could not imagine what could have happened... Everyking (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
So you didn't go back and look at the AfD before commenting here? I would go read the end of that, examine the emerging consensus at the DRV, and possibly reassess your opinion. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Of course I did realize what had happened. Perhaps I should have said "if I didn't have so much depressing experience seeing admins overrule consensus, I could not have imagined what happened". This "emerging consensus" at the DRV is based on a fait accompli; that's always how it goes, people defer to the admin once the action is taken. But make no mistake, you put your own opinion ahead of the community's wishes. Everyking (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Not really—I've seen many DRVs get overturned. If this was as egregious as you claim, it would have been a unanimous condemnation. Either way, I don't have an opinion on Belle Knox. I read the debate and made what I felt was the correct call. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Everyking, you are mistaken and grossly out of line. Determining consensus is not a simple head count; if it was, we'd have bots instead of admins. When closing any discussion, admin or not, the closer needs to weigh the comments against established policy, since that represents broader community consensus. Granted, not everyone has the exact same interpretation of any given policy, but that does not give anyone the right to berate anyone else for their valid interpretation. If you can't disagree with Ed amicably, I'd ask you to disengage, because your behavior is clearly unproductive. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
People worked on that article and the community voted to keep it, and Ed disregarded all that. That is the plain and simple truth, and somebody needed to tell him that. Having made the point, I will happily "disengage". Everyking (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
As I said, discussions are not resolved by a simple vote. You've been here far too long to still have that fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. But I thank you for agreeing to walk away. Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Admin's Barnstar
for a courageous close. Spartaz Humbug! 21:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Spartaz. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

[edit]

RE:FT

[edit]
What exactly do you mean? Wikipedia:Good topics and Wikipedia:Featured topics are two different entities and as such they have their own count pages (here and here). Or are you talking about something involving bots? Because everything we do is done manually. Including the count pages. GamerPro64 03:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
GamerPro, I was referring to the featured topics page, which hasn't had a new entry since January ... but now I realize I should have been looking at the good topic page. Sorry! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Glad to hear that everything is taken care of then. I guess when you think about it, the Featured Topic project is a bit complicated. GamerPro64 15:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
It can be when you don't look at it often :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

FC for the 26th

[edit]

Should be fairly easy this week. I've already set it up, and there's a lot less to describe than normal. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, I like hearing that ;-) I'll get to the FAs and FLs tomorrow! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Though one question: Do we report good topics or only featured topics? Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
See, that's what I ran into in the above section -- we only do featured topics, and they are two very different things. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay. In any case, I've roughed in my image selection, and did a couple of the descriptions. If we get space, I might add in another image (Probably Stockholm station). We don't have as much space as normal, so I've innovated a little bit. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I like the gallery! Good choices. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Pine found a good image in an FA, and we had enough space for the Stockholm Central Station image once I finished describing the FPs. It looks pretty good, and it scales gracefully, which is one of my big goals. At lower window widths than my 1400px, it even does a nice division into FA image next to FAs, FL image next to FLs, and FPs next to FPs. (I've been trying to do that every week, but FAs and FLs don't always have enough good images to make it work that well.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
By the way, as next week's more-or-less April Fools, should the lead image be a little bit cheeky? Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
You may go with that Adam Cuerden. But I think that it should be made not lead image but center image of bottom. Good for 1st April. :-)Herald 13:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with making it cheeky! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Featured content

[edit]

Yeah, obviously I haven't been around much, but I'm interested in getting back into the swing of things. I've been a lot more busy and probably couldn't actually work on the featured content, but I could look over things and do tidying up. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@Brambleberry of RiverClan: Hey, thanks for getting in touch. I hope RL isn't too stressful! We'd love to have you around even in that capacity. Every little bit helps! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Started the April Fools issue's Featured content

[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-04-02/Featured content

POTY

[edit]

You know, this might be controversial, but I'm tempted to do an opinion piece on it. It has a tendency to exclude large classes of content, and the finalists, many times, are only vaguely usable to illustrate an encyclopedia - take this year's, in which a smoking lightbulb was photoshopped to remove the lampholder, leaving a visually striking - yet probably encyclopedically worthless - image. The one year I was involved, images were divided up into categories, and the category winners competed in the finals, I don't know why they dropped it, but if this is the result, methinks it should come back. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Adam, I'm emailing you about this. Tony (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I found the high proportion of POTY candidates which were images which had been (legally) harvested from Flickr to be rather unsettling. Surly the contest should be limited to images which were donated to Commons by their creator, and not include images where the creator might well be unaware that the image is on Commons. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@Nick-D: I thought it was open to all images which had attained FP status in the preceding calendar year (including also PD images etc.). Avoiding Flickr would require quite a bit of rule retooling, either at FPC or POTY. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's my understanding of the rules as well. I personally think that including the Flickr images in the contest is unhelpful given that few of these images were consciously made available to Commons by their creators: it seems better to reserve this honour for donated images in order to encourage further donations. But that's all IMO :) (from someone who's donated lots of self-created images to Commons, and also uploaded quite a few Flickr-sourced images there). Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
But you know that if they do, they'll come up with some rule that means anyone who does restoration work will get excluded from POTY, instead of simply de facto excluded. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Which would suck. Royally. Mind you, none of my restorations have actually passed Commons FPC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

[edit]

User:Matty.007/sandbox/HMS Algerine (J213)

[edit]

Hi, I know you are very active in ship articles, would you mind giving the article a once over before I mainspace it please? Also, is there anything I can say about it being the namesake (I think) of the Algerine-class minesweeper? Thanks, Matty.007 15:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Matty, it's going to need a pretty severe copyedit, but I'd say it's a strong start—especially for such a small ship that doesn't have much information on it. Sturmvogel's covered all of the other bases on the ship. I'd say that the article can get to GA once you go through some of the literature on the topic to make sure that there isn't any other information out there. :-) Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, thank you for the help. Best, Matty.007 20:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter

[edit]

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Rhodesia Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. 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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_ed17/Archives/74&oldid=1144613092"