An editor has nominated Case interview, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Case interview and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply on village pump. You are right it is violating rules to use AWB without permission. However, I did have permission. I was not using AWB in automatic mode. Ohmpandya(Talk)20:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your valuable advice. I have made my essay a single page (without the tabs) at User:Billscottbob/assessingreliability, atempted to make it less verbose, changed risk to reliability and added an overview table to make it more user-friendly. Do you have any other advice for me?
In the future I plan to add more info on NPOV/Bias. I've added some stuff on systematic bias. Other than that, I couldn't really find information that would be applicable. Reliability of Wikipedia concentrates on Wikipedia as a whole instead of individual articles. So other than NPOV/Bias and systematic bias, I couldn't think of anything else to add.
In response to a recent request by a user, I typed up instructions for non-admin closures of deletion debates. I have put this material into a userspace essay at User:Jerry/NAC. I tried to find something on this subject, but the search feature of the site came up empty, and I did not find it in your editor index or in the deltion policy or it's linked pages. Do you think that it belongs in the index? Thanks, JERRYtalkcontribs05:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, I have moved the essay to Wikipedia:Non-admin closure, with shortcut WP:NADC (WP:NAC already exists for an implausible redirect to the community portal, but since two users are currently using it in their userspace, I have asked them if I can usurp the shortcut.) This has been posted at WP:VPP, as you suggested.
Interview
Wonderful. I'll try to come up with some questions in the next 24 hours or so; responses requested by Monday, if possible. Ral315 (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Wiki Trust
Saw your link to Wiki Trust at the Village Pump, which includes an invitation for comments to the Wiki Trust Mailing Group. Tried to send this but was told I was not entitled to post,
Hi,
Just took a look at your demo. Probably you know this already, but anyway, all the language links are screwed up at the bottom of the articles.
Btw, I will be DEVASTATED if any of my words ever turn orange.
Oh, sorry, my mistake, I was making the assumption you were connected with the development. By the way, I am the same person, I signed my real name as it was on an e-mail. SpinningSpark12:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Questions
Sorry for the delay.
What first motivated you to write a book about Wikipedia? How long has the book been in progress?
What areas of Wikipedia and Wikimedia does the book cover?
Most of the book is devoted to editing help -- how much of the book is devoted to the community (e.g. talk pages, RFA, dispute resolution)?
Who is the book's primary audience? What will new editors get from the book? What will experience editors get from the book?
Are there any immediate plans to update the book regularly, or write another book exploring a different side of the Wikimedia universe?
Where is the book available? (As an aside, Amazon.com still shows it as pre-order, Buy.com has it available in March, but O'Reilly has it available. Is it available yet?)
Also, do you know if there's a way to read it online, without using O'Reilly's subscription service? I'd like a quick and easy way to read it in order to be able to review it for an upcoming issue, and I'm perfectly glad to pay for it, but I'm not a fan of paying $22/month to be able to read their books. Ral315 (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Probably not. I guess I just have a personal dislike of criticism sections and don't think they're encyclopedic. Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. --PTR (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
One of my favorite pictures
Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 74 supporting, 3 opposing, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have placed in me. —Remember the dot(talk)18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost
involved in a cult-like organisation? I would say that this is quite an non-neutral way to describe my affiliation. I would expect better reporting by the Signpost, which I find always excellent. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)23:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to post the message and index link on my talk page. Looking forward to contributing as time becomes available.--Maximango (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd disagree with you that controversial legislation authored by a congressman is covered under WP:NOT. I restored part of your edit (I do agree that it was very lengthy). If you think I was incorrect, let me know. CredoFromStarttalk17:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm a bit of an inclusionist, but I think I was misunderstanding that the legislation has not even been voted on, let alone become law - I thought it was a done deal. I'll re-remove the section. In the event that it does pass (admittedly unlikely after reading the text of the bill) I would say it ought to get put back in. CredoFromStarttalk17:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Re
No, it is done! The only "pendency" is a question Sandy has raised and for which he expects an answer from Raul (check the talk page). Personally, I have nothing else to add. Thanks a lot for the copy-editing. And a question: The way I linked at the end of the article was it wrong, because you changed it? I reverted it because I liked more mine, but if you think that for the signpost (I admit I was not so familiar with it!) is better the way you did it, I'll revert it again to your version! Again thanks!--Yannismarou (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I was referring more that you were familiar with disputes between Uptional and I because you made a few comments about that other than the ones you mention. But as you're too busy, thanks anyway. Unfortunately I still have the problem I had a year ago, if you recall: no one else wants to get involved. RB97200:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Some editors have made comments, but one editor disputes the emerging consensus. The current issue is in regards to 7 cites to news articles, about whether they fail WP:V now that they are no longer hosted by the original publishers' websites. So if you'd like to make a short comment it shouldn't take much of your time to reply to this specific issue and I think it will help to get things moving along. RB97203:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, John. Another editor came in and deleted all the sources that were discussed and some others. Thankfully though he's not another SPA. I asked him to discuss his changes [2]. RB97211:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I checked the page and saw it was a little empty, so I was going to work on mine tonight. Did you see the comment i posted on the talk page. The Placebo Effect (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Re:Signpost tutorial series
Sorry for the late reply! I'm actually thinking of scrapping the schedule at User:Enochlau/Signpost tutorial series and just having a list of topics with an indication of how each is progressing. That way, we can just pick the best-written one from the pool of tutorials and we won't have to worry about chasing people up for a particular issue. What do you think? enochlau (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Lead Section
Hi John. I noticed your name as a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Lead Paragraph cleanup group and thought I might ask for your expertise. I had never written anything before, but after 10 months of struggling and loads of help from other experienced editors, I managed to help bring Bradley Joseph to FA status last June. My problem is that I still think the lead needs work but I can't place my finger on it, and I wondered if you could have a look whenever you have some time, just to get an objective point of view on how it sounds, i.e. is there enough info, can anything be added, is it neutral enough, etc. No pressure and no hurry. If you can't that is fine too. BTW, congrats on the new book! I wish I had that a few years ago! Cheers! ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 20:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks John for looking! Was that all you could find? If so, I feel much better about it. Your work is greatly respected and I am honored you took time out. Thanks again. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I was walked through a complete dissection and rewrite of the aritcle by FA writers last year, and taught that everything POV had to be quoted and attributed; hence, the many quotes, which is of course especially important in the musical style section (a necessity for a composers article) so that nothing is original research. Maybe I can go through and trim and/or convert to paraphrases and leave attributions intact. I don't look at it very often, so I'll give it some time and get a fresh look after a while and implement your suggestions. Thanks again. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The Missing Manual
Hi John, congrats on a decent book. (I am surprised to see no other comments on it here...?) It must have been hard to narrow something like Wikipedia down into 400-odd pages. FYI, I wrote some thoughts about it here. cheers, pfctdayelise (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I see. thanks for your explanations. Do you have any interest in writing a sequel? It would presumably cover at least IAR and RfA. ;) --pfctdayelise (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I meant RfA more in the sense of "how to pass RfA", rather than "how RfA works" (there's a bit of a gap between the spoken and unspoken rules I suspect). :) cheers --pfctdayelise (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone can write a "how to pass RfA" in the current crazily (nuts and very much broken) RfA of today. Basically you have to meet so many crazy criteria and name your first born Wiki to qualify -- Tawker (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This cycnicism is why no traditional publisher will touch you with a ten foot pole, Tawker. But happily there are some (like John) who can refrain from expressing it. :)
@John, you know if you add another four chapters, that will be pretty chunky. I personally don't like the "fighting vandalism" attitude to Wikipedia, and would probably not emphasise it myself -- but clearly there is a lot of appeal in it for a lot of people, so what do I know?
[compulsive answering thing going on.] Do you know of WP:Spoken Wikipedia? IMO it's one of the coolest wikiproject there are. If you could squeeze in a mention of it I reckon that would be pretty cool. :) pfctdayelise (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:John Broughton. 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.
