User talk:Ocaasi/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ocaasi. 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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

News and notes: Chapters Council proposals take form as research applications invited for Wikipedia Academy and HighBeam accounts

Discussion report: Article Rescue Squadron in need of rescue yet again

WikiProject report: Lessons from another Wikipedia: Czech WikiProject Protected Areas

Featured content: Featured content on the upswing!

Arbitration report: Race and intelligence 'review' opened, Article titles at voting

Technology report: Bugmeister to leave at end of May, but developers keen to "chart" a path ahead

There is a question at the Teahouse you might have interest in...

Dear Ocaasi, I just asked a question at the Teahouse that you might have interest in! I hope you'll stop by and participate! Sarah (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

G Cousens

I did warn you - diff - Youreallycan 14:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you did indeed. I'm working on it. Hopefully it turns out well. I can't believe I'd be the one saying this, but better no article than one which is half about the controversy. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 14:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Good luck with it. I am hopeful of a npov compromise as the editors there are quite policy conscious and experienced contributors. Best regards - Youreallycan 14:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The funny thing is, the controversy is the only section that has strong sources, sources which we here would call reliable. What does that tell you? If you think that the Ghana News Agency, Treeoflife.com, gabrielcousens.com, Naturalnews.com, Empowernewsmag.com, Veghealth.com and Rawfor30days.com are acceptable sources to puff up a BLP with, you should probably stay away from BLPs altogether. Drmies (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, you removed several sources which were local and regional newspapers as well as popular alternative medicine publications. I believe NaturalNews is a reliable source for Cousens' views, especially where they interviewed him directly. Primary sources can be used to "augment" (not puff up) the material in a BLP per WP:BLPPRIMARY. If you would like to discuss individual sources, I will do that. So far, however, disagree with the extent ofyour edits as well as your approach in not following WP:BRD.Ocaasi^{t | c} 14:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a BLP: you can't build those on primary sources. 2/3 or more of your version of the article was Cousens's views on this and that, and/or was sourced to such primary and other unreliable sources. That's ridiculous. You can't build BLPs on websites--well, you can, but not on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You can take a strict stance on BLP sourcing, and I'm willing to discuss that, but you still removed many sources which were not primaries. We should begin by discussing those less controversial pieces. Would you like to take this section by section, or source by source? Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Ocaasi, I don't understand. I have given detailed edit summaries, and placed comments on the talk page--about the Ghana News Agency, the book review, etc. Why didn't you respond there, in detail, instead of just reverting the whole lot? And now you've practically blanked it, and in doing so you removed the most reliable sources of them all. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me try and explain. This article was deleted in 2010 because Cousens objected to the controversy section and the rest of the article was deemed insufficiently notable. I rewrote the draft with the goal of it being thorough and balanced, but also providing enough content not related to the controversy to meet the notability guideline. The bulk of that content was related to Cousens' reputation as an expert in raw foods, his views on nutrition, his work at the Tree of Life center, and the movie Simply Raw. You removed nearly all of that. What was left was about 20% of the original, and 50% of that was the controversy. I am currently fielding objections from Cousens' office that the article is a hitpiece. They intend to pursue legal action against either me or the foundation. So, you are completely incorrect that I want to minimize the controversy section. What I want is a complete, balanced article. I spent well over 20 hours putting it together and arguing for its very existence. I do not want it to remain a stub. But rather than leave an article overly focused on the controversy, I stubbed it so we can actually discuss it. I hope you acknowledge that in your zeal to get this article into shape you were not particularly civil towards me, and my reverting to the longer version was an attempt to follow WP:BRD and discuss specifics, without ad hominems or bad faith, or dismissiveness. I still think we should do that. I did not have a problem with the content that you included in your version. What I want to discuss is the pieces that were removed from it. I don't share your views about the relevance or inadequacy of the sources in those sections, so that is probably what we should talk about.

Let's start with a minor example, the Ghana News Agency. On its face, this sounds like a throwaway source, but a read of the news agency's bio suggests that it's been around for over 50 years, and was the first news agency in sub-saharan Africa. No NY Times, but worth considering. In particular, I would like to look at the use of these sources in the context of the information they are supporting, as policy suggests we do. Ghana News Agency was used 4 times in my version: 1) "The Tree of Life Rejuvenation Center offers spa vacations, spiritual retreats and spiritual and health education programs." 2) "Tree of Life Rejuvenation Center has an international reputation for its teachings on spirituality and live foods." 3) "Cousens, author of There Is A Cure for Diabetes: The Tree of Life 21-Day+ Program, offers a three week program at Tree of Life for detoxification and caloric restriction to reverse diabetes." and 4) "Ghana News Agency reports that 33% of type 1 diabetics and 55% of type 2 diabetics are able to stop taking insulin and maintain a blood sugar of less than 100 within 21 days." 1 is uncontroversial information about the services offered at the Tree of life center; 2 is stated a bit strongly, and I might remove 'international'; 3) is more uncontroversial information about a program Cousens offers at Tree of Life; 4) is a medical claim, which certainly doesn't meet WP:MEDRS, but I thought was okay with attribution. So, the question is, is Ghana News Agency reliable for those claims, and I believe that for at least some of them it is. It's not a great source, but is it an RS in those instances...at least maybe. I'm happy to look at each source in question, or each section that was removed. Glad we're talking. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

<--Here's the thing with this source, even setting aside its relevance--or the question why on EARTH a news agency from Ghana would report on a center in Arizona; you don't find that odd?--why does any of that info need to be in the article? The version I produced (which you undid) had a paragraph for the center:

In 1993, Cousens founded the Tree of Life Rejuvenation Center, operating from Patagonia, Arizona.[10] The “healing modalities” offered at The Tree of Life include fasting and detoxification, a natural approach to curing diabetes, a "conscious eating" program, workshops on modern Essene living, Essene minister and priesthood training; psycho-spiritual healing, and mental wellness for healing the brain and nervous system.[11] The center also offers a program for a raw baby formula and studies the impact of raw diets on babies and children.[12]

Isn't that enough for a center which in itself is not notable? And two of those sources were pretty decent: the Marin newspaper and the AZ Central. Why would this center need more attention in a biography? It's excessive detail, and if Cousens wants publicity he should take out an ad in Harper's (or state on his website that he took out an ad in Harper's).

As for your other issues, with Cousens, that's not our concern. He can't sue Wikipedia (unless he wants to get laughed at), and I don't see how he can sue you unless you're on his payroll. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI: Ghana News Agency. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Like I said, I'm happy to discuss individual sources. I didn't know that GNA was a state news agency, and though I don't know why they'd be inaccurate in their reporting about Cousens, I concede that it's we probably shouldn't use it, even with attribution. Let's talk about NaturalNews.com. My contention is that although it is not a reliable source in the ideal (New York Times) sense of the word, it is is suitable for merely describing Cousens' views on nutrition, especially from interviews with him (www.naturalnews.com/015187.html ^{[unreliable fringe source?]}www.naturalnews.com/028084_Gabriel_Cousens_diabetes.html ^{[unreliable fringe source?]}www.naturalnews.com/028341_diabetes_living_foods.html ^{[unreliable fringe source?]}). In an article on an alternative medicine practitioner, some of the sources may come from the alternative medicine sphere, and interviews with the author himself have a role, imo, at least to augument the details in other sources. I recognize there's a difference of approach here--I want more detailed information about Cousens and you want stricter limitations on lower quality sources. Let's discuss. Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  - That it's a state news agency is not really my point. Why they would report on Cousens is my question--or really, "report". Anyway, this is really a question you should ask on the RS noticeboard. It is not up to me alone to decide on these issues, and they are probably not user talk page issues anyway. Because this is a BLP, the burden is on the editor to use reliable sources; the RS noticeboard can help decide. But that doesn't take away from another, more serious problem: the very structure of the article was not in accordance with our guidelines and conventions (a "Reputation" section for instance, or a lead full of adjectives and references, and a mention of a celebrity endorsing the subject). I'm a bit puzzled that these things aren't obvious to you after almost 20,000 edits, and I still wonder how it is that Cousens approaches you--you the editor or you the person? Drmies (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
    - Let's keep the suspicions at bay, please. I approached Cousens, because he was objecting to the article and it was up for Deletion Review. If he dropped his objection, the article would have easily passed. It still passed, but it was more contentious. Is it really our role to divine why a source reports on something? Cousens does work internationally, and perhaps he visited Ghana, or Ghana News Agency just takes an interest in alternative medicine. I like your suggestion to use RSN, but there are several sources, and that will take some time. You're right that the structure of the article wasn't perfect, and I don't object to improving section headings, for example. But those are mainly just form issues, not content. I want to focus on the content. Although I have 20,000 edits, spread widely around, this is the first BLP about an alternative health practitioner I've written. It's different that the current events and politics articles I usually write, because the sourcing is not from major national media. How would you feel about starting to put back pieces of your version, beginning with the background/education section. I'd like to wait on the controversy section until we can resolve some of the other issues, because I do believe it gives it undue weight to have it at half of the article when there are many sources about Cousens which don't mention it at all. Thoughts? Ocaasi^{t | c} 12:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hossam el-Hamalawy

Hello, Ocaasi. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hey EL. I got your email and am going to take a look at it today or tomorrow. Sorry I can't do it right away, but I have a few other things going on. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 12:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Please help out at the Paid Editor Help page

While not a huge backlog yet, we're getting to it on the Paid Editor Help page. The sections that need replies include Colin Digiaro, Guy Bavli, Strayer University, Stevens Institute of Technology, and a general backlog in the Request Edits category. If you could help in any of these sections (primarily the first four), I would be really grateful. This notification is going out to a number of Wikiproject Cooperation members in the hopes that we can clear out all of the noted sections. And feel free to respond to a section and help out even if someone else had already responded there. The more eyes we get on a specific request, the more sure we can be on the neutrality of implementing it. Thanks! Silver seren^C 03:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

One thing to note

In regards to Paid editing on Wikipedia, since the Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement page was kept, the Paid editing page shouldn't have the entire article copied into it. Instead, it should have a summary of the article and a Main page hatnote linking to the article with the rest of the info. Silver seren^C 03:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It's actually on the talk page to-do list to suggest a merge, but in the meantime I'll go and summarize it. Thanks for looking out. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 03:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Your new piece

Just a heads-up... You've got four or five cite errors showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much. I shortened a section and must have lost the parent refs. Fixing now. Cheers! Ocaasi^{t | c} 04:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your excellent work on the article Paid editing on Wikipedia Rangoon11 (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

OTRS

Hi Ocassi - I was looking for this to investigate the report, "I have notified OTRS (ticket: 2012032110000726) and forwarded them the relevant communications." - but it was nowhere to be found - is that number correct? Youreallycan 08:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey YRC, that number was emailed to me by Philippe Beaudette at WMF. It's currently in the 'legal' queue, which you may not have access to (I don't). Sorry neither of us can see it. I'm curious what the ongoing discussion is about. If it's relevant for on-wiki discussion or account blocks (for example, the ips who are not only commenting on the talk page but also making direct changes to the article), then I can post it at AN/I a see if someone there has access. I can also contact Philippe and ask him if we need to be doing something on wiki to moderate the discussion in light of WP:LEGAL. Ocaasi^{t | c} 10:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah oK - thanks for the detail - Those guys have the responsibility so if anything needs actioning they will let us know I suppose. - have a nice day. - Youreallycan 10:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey O, hey hey hey O. Come delight annawanna go home

Hello, Ocaasi. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

14:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam (2)

Hi! Is this well done? Thank you. :-) --Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 01:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I responded on your it.wiki talk page. It is a nice thought indeed, but I already have an account which HighBeam used to test their setup on. I will remove my name from the list just to make the numbers work out when we start giving out accounts. Thanks, and cheers. Ocaasi^{t | c} 13:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry to bother you, but I saw the offer you managed to swing for us for the free Highbeam accounts. First of all, let me add my voice to those who are praising your effort on this. I've been an intermittent Highbeam subscriber in the past, and always found it useful for my Wikipedia editing; I'm sure it will benefit others likewise. Obviously, the company feels it can get something from providing free access (even if it's just that some of us may go on to pay for accounts in the future), and I'm perfectly OK with that arrangement. The only thing that's niggling at me, and the reason I'm posting here, is this wording at WP:HighBeam/Applications: "Editors should always provide original citation information, in addition to linking a HighBeam article, per WP:V and WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT." Now, I'm sure to many editors that wording will simply mean that even when we're linking to a Highbeam-hosted article, our citation should still be to the original article information. There is another interpretation, however. I may be reading this wrongly, but the second half of that sentence could easily be interpreted as directing users to always link to the Highbeam page, especially with the invocation of WP:V and WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, when it may not be necessary or even the best choice. I don't deny that it can be useful to include links to online versions of articles, even where a subscription is necessary to view them, but do you think there are circumstances where editors may not want to do so? If I cite an article, and I get it from Highbeam, I wouldn't necessarily want to include that link in the citation; indeed, I haven't in any of my featured articles. Sometimes the article is available elsewhere; sometimes its original publisher offers (paid) access to its own archive; sometimes a third party will offer the same; sometimes it might be an ideological stance on the editor's part. All I'm driving at is that the current wording appears to attempt to deny editors that choice (as I say, some will take the wording to mean they must include the Highbeam link in addition to the original citation), even if the effect is incidental (I'm not suggesting it was quid pro quo stipulation of Highbeam's agreement to provide the accounts; I apologise if it comes across like that). I'm not trying to brew a storm in a teacup, I'm not arguing for some kind of glorious communist utopia where Wikipedia is left unsullied by commercial interests, and it could be that I'm reading this wrongly and the second part of the quoted sentence is not doing what I think it is. So I just wanted to gauge your opinion to see if you think we need to re-examine the wording. All the best, and thanks again. Steve ^T • C 22:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered thoughts and no worry about the word count. My intention with that 'use expectation' was that editors do 3 things: 1) provide original citation information (title, author, publisher, date) so that the source can be looked up independently; 2) link to a free version of the source if available and compatible with copyrights (i.e. no linking to republications that are copyvios); 3) link to the site where the editor actually read the full article (and if it's HighBeam, then link to HighBeam). I agree with you that there are often multiple places to link to, including an archived, paywalled version at the original source (for example a Washington Post.com article which costs $3.95 to view). My approach, and feel free to disagree, is that such a source should not be linked to alone (and therefore excluding HighBeam), if HighBeam is where the editor found the full text. That's the 'say where you got it' point. I would have no problem linking to 2 sources--the original paywalled site and Higbeam--or even more if available. The reason I want editors to link to HighBeam, in addition to saywhereyougotit, is admittedly to give HighBeam something back for their services. They are giving us free access to their resources, and if used, I think a link back is both in line with policy and a fair approach. They are currently under the impression that they will be linked back in references, at least in addition to other relevant pages. Please let me know what you think. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 22:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the reply, and the honesty; you could quite easily have obfuscated the point about Highbeam's expectations. I hesitated to raise this issue, because I'm not entirely sure it is an issue, and I don't want to do anything to endanger (on what many would consider a petty ideological point) what should be a very useful resource. My own stance is that we shouldn't tell editors that they have to link to Highbeam or any other search/archive site (though I have little problem if they want to); they should even have the option of just presenting the original citation. If a reader wants to verify a fact from such a citation, they should be able to easily find the Highbeam (or original publication, or third party) archive through a simple web search. That way, it's their choice who to pay for it (if anyone); I tend to dislike links to Google Books for the same reason. I don't think this conflicts with "say where you got it" at all, which is more about ensuring the reader cites the correct text (Paul, who cites John). On the other hand, and I recognise the inconsistency, I'm perfectly happy to include links to web-original articles, so there's a good chance I'm off-base with this and literally the only person to whom this is a concern. I'd be a liar if "[Highbeam] are currently under the impression that they will be linked in references" didn't make me uneasy, but in the end this discussion may be academic; either editors will link to the site or not, and I think many will choose the latter once they have their access. Regardless, I hope Highbeam can eventually recognise the benefits of helping Wikipedia in this way without the expectation of anything in return. All the best, Steve ^T • C 23:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not unsympathetic to these 'must do' concerns. There are no reference police who are going to chase you down or cancel your HighBeam account if you take a different route. In general, we should always do what's best for our readers, and if linking to HighBeam isn't that, then don't do it (though my personal suggestion is to link to wherever you think is best in addition to HighBeam). It's an expectation to give linking to them a fair shot, but not a requirement, if that parsing makes sense. I'll let individual editors sort out their own ethics and not worry too much about the particulars. I'd like to keep this in the win-win column and one way to do that is not harp over technicalities and individual editor's qualms. I can't aim for perfect here, just really good. Also, HighBeam has already received benefit just from editors knowing about their services, from them hearing about their good deed, and from the future use of their services which may well 'addict' some editors to what HighBeam provides. I do want to emphasize that HighBeam has not driven a hard bargain here. They immediately liked the idea, offered no resistance on the number of accounts (casually granting 1000, a $200,000 benefit to us), and have suggested they want to continue offering those accounts even after the 1 year period is over (though that's still up for discussion). If we as a community want to continue what is an informal but nonetheless still a 'relationship' with HighBeam, it would probably benefit us to give a little to them, where it doesn't impact our core mission or principles. All said, I share a touch of your queasiness at the idea that we would ever be motivated by an external corporation's goals. If you can think of a way to amend the 'expectations' so that it strikes a better balance, feel free to offer suggestions. Nice talking with you. Ocaasi^{t | c} 00:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You've really gotten my ethical streak going, and I'm trying to justify why this arrangement is in line, even with our highest principles. Here goes: For one, there is a pragmatic argument. Having this service will benefit our readers significantly by providing sources. If linking to HighBeam is the only way to maintain that arrangement, then on the balance it benefits our readers for us to do so. That of course, is not a principled argument, so consider a more nuanced justification: HighBeam costs $30 per month and at least $200 per year, making it far more expensive than any newspaper archive I've seen, but HighBeam also offers a free 7-day trial. Yes, it requires a credit card, but so would an alternative paywalled site used to purchase a version. Assuming the reader isn't excluded from a free trial (perhaps because they already used it up), linking to HighBeam actually is best for our readers. Which just leaves one edge-case. What if someone uses HighBeam to find and read a source, but they later discover a valid, free or cheaper version is available; in that case, should they still link to HighBeam? For one, we've narrowed down the area of contention considerably already. Let's look at another angle. Let's assume that HighBeam offers a useful service. Linking to HighBeam alerts readers to the existence of that service, and they might find that they like it and want to pay for it. Now, of course, it's not our role to be informing readers about third-party anything, but it's a plus nonetheless. So what's left? If the reader doesn't want or can't get a free trial, and a free source or alternative source is available, but HighBeam was used to find it, then: there is no practical harm in linking to HighBeam as well, aside from cluttering a reference with external links. Is there an ethical harm in making that small gesture, because we may be doing it for HighBeam's benefit, or for our non-neutral relationship with them? I'm still thinking on this, but will let you know if I come up with an answer. Ocaasi^{t | c} 01:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ocaasi, I wanted to bring this thread to your attention in case you hadn't noticed it - although I guess most questions there have been answered already. Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the pointer. I have responded there. Cheers! Ocaasi^{t | c} 11:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for inviting me to the Teahouse! Vaktug (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Khaled Ali

Hello! Your submission of Khaled Ali at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just leaving a quick note regarding this nom. I think it's okay now, but will probably not be able to look at it again myself for another 24 hours at least. Tomorrow is jammed full of things and I won't even be near a computer most of the day. At this point, the situation is just to sit tight and wait for a new reviewer to come along. Unfortunately, I think the discussion may put a few people off a bit, but someone will eventually come around. In the meantime, we can just keep tweaking and improving the article. It's very heavy on quotes (not so bad, but some could be handled a bit better). Marrante (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the work you've already done. I would definitely support summarizing or removing a few of the quotes. It's more of a journalistic rather than encyclopedic style which I still tend towards. Hopefully between us we can get it in proper shape and approved at DYK by some time next week. Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I've finished the re-write. You may want to review WP:PARAPHRASE. It may also be helpful to compare the last revision you made before I started working on the article with my final revision and with the reference/s used so you can see how far one must take an idea to avoid close paraphrasing. It seems that you understand the concept to refer to paragraphs lifted from a source, or that refs are to show where you found a sentence, whereas they are to support the ideas you present, either from summarizing what you've read or to support what you already knew and have written. Single sentences and long phrases lifted from even a long list of sources still poses a problem, as you have seen. Marrante (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I will do all that you suggested. I do understand the basic distinction between 'taking and attributing' and 'summarizing and making original'. I just am not proficient yet at doing the latter, though it's a problem I've been aware of for the past several months. Thanks you again for your efforts. It made a better article and gave me a guide going forward for avoiding close paraphrasing. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 09:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand the problem, having seen it in myself on occasion. To avoid it, I recommend writing in user space, where you can take more time (if you're thinking about DYK, you have to nominate within 5 days of it's appearance in the main space or when expansion began) and I recommend reading a source in its entirety, in fact, all of the ones you are looking at and then beginning to write, looking at the source only when you need to check something. The only problem with this is that you may well forget, if using a long list of sources, just where you found what fact. This is where writing in user space will help. You can make notes in any fashion you wish and then go back and put everything in proper order for the final draft. Another thing you can do is put ideas you have that you can't seem to re-phrase properly in hidden comments so they are invisible except in edit view. Then you can return to it later on or as many times as you need until you're able to gain the distance necessary. Another thing I do is copy and paste the section I want to summarize right into the edit view and write immediately above or below it, so I can check it constantly while writing and see that I'm not too close. Just don't forget to delete the pasted section before saving—and ALWAYS check your saved page before moving on, just in case. Better to catch your mistake right away yourself before somebody or some bot does. Marrante (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll give you a brief idea of my writing process. I research, vigorously, finding any sources that meet RS even barely (that's something else I should work on, being more source-choosy). Then I read every article in full, copying excerpts to a draft page in userspace verbatim. I do this for all of the sources. I then add reference tags and organize the sources by topic, cutting them up into pieces if necessary. Then I remove unique phrasings and substitute words for originality. Last, I edit out redundancies, and improve the writing for flow. You can see how this could leave significant remnants, since I am indeed writing from the exact wordings. Sometimes I will rephrase two consecutive sentences but leave their order, or I will exchange several synonyms and reword something, but not alter the sentence structure significantly enough. I am wondering if I can take my version of a draft, like the one I made live at Khaled Ali, and just put that through another round of editing; or, if I need to add substantially to my editing process some kind of note-taking or summarizing procedures. Right now my approach is extremely efficient, but if it's leading to regular instances and accusations of close paraphrasings, then I need to tweak it at the least. I appreciate your tips. Ocaasi^{t | c} 10:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Your method is the source of your problem. It may be efficient, but it is very far from sufficient. One more round of editing, unless it's of the type I just did, will justifiably get everything you send to DYK flagged for close paraphrasing. Tweaking it more will not be enough. Tweaking is what I expected to have to do to the Khaled Ali article; what I found, however, was that essentially every sentence not in quotes was virtually identical to a passage in the ref provided. This discovery left me with no choice but to tediously compare each sentence in the article to the ref/s provided and re-write "Khaled Ali" in its entirety. You need to do the kind of substantial editing that I did, where the information is there, but the words are entirely your own, except perhaps in the rare instance where there really is no other way to say something. I highly recommend you very carefully review what the guidelines say in WP:PARAPHRASE and seek out a mentor. Earlier you described the kind of writing you do as "journalistic", but I can tell you that no newspaper I know would keep you on staff and in fact, they would probably make a public apology for your work in firing you, if for no other reason than to make it clear to their readers that they do not plagiarize and can be trusted to hold to that higher standard. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but frankly, I was shocked at the state of the article I fixed. To have put as much work into that as you clearly did, it was still entirely plagiarized by any definition or standard I have ever seen or been taught. The only conclusion that I could come to was that you did not understand what is required and you have just shown me I was right. I can only blame your education, because you clearly want to do the right thing and you put in a lot of work on that article. I needed to do almost no research; I "only" had to read the sources you found and re-write the article, which unfortunately was considerably more work than I had time to do. The good part is that this article now makes more sense—your system also creates certain gaps in logic or explanatory detail, where statements are cited, but because the critical information leading to the sentence you did take was left behind in the sentences you did not use, some parts of your article were confusing or unclear. I fully expect "Khaled Ali" to be approved now. Marrante (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your candor. I knew this was something I had to improve, but I wasn't aware of how far away from sufficient it actually was. There's a misleading impression one gets from reading my work, because it is so detailed and well referenced. But clearly, there is an entire other aspect which is not present in my approach. I sought help for this in the past and have thought about a mentor and been looking for one. Are you interested, or could you suggest someone? Ocaasi^{t | c} 13:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm sorry I can't be your mentor because I think you have a lot of potential, but I'm backing away from my heavy involvement here. I don't know whom to suggest. I know some good writers here, but I don't know if they'd be interested in mentoring. I would suggest reading the articles written by people who are active and write well and then just ask them, or try following the discussions on GA reviews, not to participate, but to learn. Overall, reading is the best teacher. If you read things that are well-written, you will find yourself emulating them. Marrante (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the optimism and no problem about your schedule. I will ask around. In the meantime, I have considered tagging {{close paraphrasing}} on articles I have created (there are about 15). I have made varying levels of effort to deal with close paraphrasing in them, but it's likely that among them are instances similar to Khaled Ali. Do you think that is a good/necessary idea?

You're welcome. No, I don't think it's a good idea to flag your articles with things like that. I would suggest working on them and maybe, if it fits, putting an "under construction" flag as you're working on an article, but I mostly don't bother with it unless the likelihood of an edit conflict warrants it. I would, however, be blunt about the issue when nominating an article for DYK again. You don't want to scare people, but I would say you're trying to learn and know that this has been an issue and that you will work to fix any problems. You could also mention that you're looking for a mentor. That may make things take longer to get reviewed, but the person will know what he's getting into, which may help. Good luck! Marrante (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

News and notes: Controversial content saga continues, while the Foundation tries to engage editors with merchandising and restructuring

WikiProject report: WikiProject Rock Music

Featured content: Malfunctioning sharks, toothcombs and a famous mother: featured content for the week

Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review at evidence, article titles closed

Recent research: Predicting admin elections; studying flagged revision debates; classifying editor interactions; and collecting the Wikipedia literature

Education report: Universities unite for GLAM; and High Schools get their due.

Technology report: A busy week: Git switchover, mobile site upgraded, and still time for three security releases

Emailing invitations

Hi Ocaasi! I was so happy to see you take care of the database report regarding invitations today. Thank you! Inviting is the #1 thing we need at the Teahouse, or the Teahouse won't have questions to answer. Just an FYI, I did have to email the folks you invited via template from the database report, and emailing invitations is the most powerful tool we had! You can read the latest report on how awesome emails are for the Teahouse here. I hope it's not too much to ask! But, it'd rock if you could also email when the option is there. Thanks Ocaasi! :D Sarah (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops! I did email them, I just must have copied the spreadsheet No column instead of Yes for email invite. Doh! Sorry, I'll be more careful. That's the first time I've done that. Ocaasi^{t | c} 02:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Gabriel Cousens for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gabriel Cousens is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Cousens (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Tiptoety ^talk 05:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse

Well,Ocaasi, I did not understand what is this Wikipedia teahouse, or how to become a part of it. • --Monareal (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)28 March 2012\ 13:18 IST(Indian Standard Time) Yours Sincierly, Monareal.

Slideshare

Hey Ocaasi. I just got an email ping saying you started following me on Slideshare. I figure that means you either liked the PPT or hated it ;-) User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 15:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, cool. I think it was automatic. I just uploaded a presentation called "Speaking Different Languages? Corporate Communications and Wikipedia" which is available here and here. I'd love your feedback on it. Cheers! Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"Speaking different languages" - what a great title. A few thoughts - take it as you will as just one man's opinion.

I would consolidate "Why Wikipedia is Important," "Why you should care" and "Wikipedia is Trusted" into one section at the front-end of the deck.
The Jimmy Wales quotes (slides 2-4) seem to belong in the same string of thought as slide 39
Slide 47: Just a wry comment, despite the rosy picture painted by the COI guideline, could you tell me with a straight face that it's cheaper, faster, easier or more "effective" to disclose than to edit directly?
Just for general trimming, a few slides could probably be cut or shortened where there are large blocks of text.

I'm no slidemaster as you can probably see, but there's some suggestions nonetheless. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 20:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I love the specific comments! You're right that the important/trusted/care are basically the same. I do like the reinforcement that they provide and the slightly different angle each offers. Considering it, though. I will check slide 39 and see if it should be moved. Indeed, about long blocks of text, I have produced a 'presentation version' to complement this one, which is mainly intended for reading online. It's here if you want to see the difference. I also added some content about PR ethics, taken from PRSA's website. Thanks again for your comments.

Whether or not disclosure is 'worth' it, depends on how you go about disclosing your interest and how serious the risk is that you will be found out. Both need to be taken into account. A transparent and civil COI editor who does disclose is in a much better position than a reckless, uncivil secret COI editor who doesn't and then is discovered. Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a very balanced and sensible presentation. Takes the best excerpts from the PRSA, CREWE, Jimbo and myself. Even makes us all look reasonable even if we're more like bickering children.

Then I see stuff like this. Ugh. Really?

Wikipedians have been talking about establishing best practices with the PRSA for years, but there's never been any meaningful discussion that I know of. What do you think about working together to start that conversation by creating some kind of specific proposition of some kind. We can write it, RFC it and run it through the community ringer and ask the PRSA to adopt it or at least comment on it. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 00:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks,Man!I'd try to intoduce myself in that teahouse.Well it seems amazing! Monareal (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse qustions

Well Ocassi,here is a set of question I just want an answer

What is a host and what does he/she do?
Is the teahouse safe?
Can we cummunicate with each other there?

And this, is really personal! Are you a guest or host? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monareal (talk • contribs) 04:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Really Thanks Ocassi.Great Thanks!. I'd try my first work at teahouse on 30 or 31 march. Monareal (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

COI Editing Article

Hi Ocaasi. I left a huge list of suggestions on the Talk page. Hope they're helpful. Looking at it now I'm surprised no one's written the article before. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 03:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Quiting teahouse

Thanks Ocassi for inviting me but, I quit from teahouse yesterday, 31 March 2012 at 9:21 pm IST.--Monareal (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ocassi, see. I tried to make an end for his posts about admins peacefully. But I think he do not know what is peace.He sent a reply saying he was not understanding what I said. I got angry. Really angry. So angry that I first thought of telling him all bad words I could find. But I just sent a bit tough reply. I think he and the other people did not like it. So the drama started.--Monareal (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

Interview: An introduction to movement roles

Arbitration analysis: Case review: TimidGuy ban appeal

News and notes: Berlin reforms to movement structures, Wikidata launches with fanfare, and Wikipedia's day of mischief

WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Signpost

Featured content: Snakes, misnamed chapels, and emptiness: featured content this week

Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review in third week, one open case

Technology report: Somewhere amongst the endless discussions about Gerrit lie details of hackathons, performance blips explained and more

DYK for Khaled Ali

On 4 April 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Khaled Ali, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that labor lawyer and activist Khaled Ali (pictured) filed a landmark lawsuit against the Egyptian government in 2010 and won a higher minimum wage for all workers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Khaled Ali.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	for your hard work in providing Wikipedians with reference materials through the provision of accounts with HighBeam. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Ocaasi^{t | c} 12:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam update?

Could we please have an update on the Highbeam accounts? I understood that they were due to be set up commencing Monday 2 April, but there doesn't seem to be any sign of them yet and there have been no updates posted on the Wikipedia:Highbeam page. Prioryman (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

jstor

Hi Ocaasi. I was wondering whether it might be worth contacting jstor to see if they might to something similar to highbeam. I keep on meaning to, but haven't got round to it. This suggests that might be willing to cooperate and give editors access. On the other hand some members of our community have caused jstor a few problems... Worth a try though right? SmartSE (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Excellent idea! I emailed them two weeks ago. They didn't bite on the idea, but I'm still going to try and persuade them. Ocaasi^{t | c} 23:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Great minds think alike and all that! Maybe if I email them too they might warm to the idea. SmartSE (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Assistance request at Allied Artists International

It appears an anon editor wants to remove all of the Los Angeles Times and other referenced material, and just did three reverts. All of the self promotion websites were removed, and totally unsourced linking of this company to a historic movie company, likely for purposes similar to those described in the LA TImes and other news sources. It is likely Warriorboy55. If you read the sources, the behavior is the same in the real world. He just did three reverts. What should I do? PPdd (talk) 04:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Ocaasi. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 12:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Mentoring Barnstar

The Barnstar of Wikipedia Mentoring I meant to post this Barnstar on your talk page for something you did last year, but I never got around to combining the images into a single barnstar. I just found it in incomplete form laying around in a folder, as yet unposted on your talk page. The image of Atlas is incorrect, the world being flat and resting on the back of a turtle. According to Bertrand Russell's editor according to Stephen Hawking in a brieft history of time, that turtle rests on the back of another, in an infinite regress of turtles. So the Atlas carrying the world of mentees actually rests on the back of another mentor, and so on all the way down. I never got around to fixing the image of Atlas for the mentoring barnstar, so I will just give you the ingredients, and you can build the barnstar yourself out of these ingredients. :) !!!! PPdd (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Your current projects

Hi there, Ocaasi. Our paths have crossed at CREWE and WP:CO-OP (although using my secondary account) and perhaps before that, but I'm pretty sure this is my first visit to your Talk page. Anyhow: I'm interested in the project you're setting up around Turnitin, and about HighBeam as well. I write a blog about Wikipedia (The Wikipedian) and I'd like to write something about one or both, perhaps as an email interview. Let me know if you're interested, or ready soon. Cheers, WWB (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey WWB. Yeah we are floating around in the same circles these days. Good stuff happening there. I would be happy to share about what I've been working on. I would like to wait until I hear back from the WMF about Turnitin, as they're still doing their preliminary legal review. Once that happens I'm game for an interview. I'm familiar with your blog and read it every now and again. Also, you're on my short-list of editors to interview for a Signpost series on paid/coi editors. So, maybe we can do two rounds. I'll let you know when things are in line. Cheers! Ocaasi^{t | c} 19:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Great! I wasn't sure where the Turnitin project was at yet, though it looks like the HighBeam has a lot of support: already an amazing number of editors signing up to participate. I'm really fascinated by the involvement of extra-wiki participants in Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects. Relatedly, I'm intending to open up the blog to more voices, so my reaching out to you is part of that. I can work on your timeline, so let me know what works. And I'd be happy to participate in your Signpost series; I do have a lot of thoughts about that as well, so let me know when the time comes. Cheers, WWB (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Two

Hi! Welcome to the second edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

Teahouse celebrates one month of being open! This first month has drawn a lot of community interest to the Teahouse. Hosts & community members have been working with the project team to improve the project in many ways including creating scripts to make inviting easier, exploring mediation processes for troubling guests, and best practices regarding mentoring for new editors who visit the Teahouse.

First month metrics report an average of 30 new editors visiting the Teahouse each week. Approximately 30 new editors participate in the Teahouse each week, by way of asking questions and making guest profiles. An average of six new questions and four new profiles are made each day. We'd love to hear your ideas about how we can spread the word about the Teahouse to more new editors.
Teahouse has many regulars. Like any great teahouse, our Teahouse has a 61% return rate of guests, who come back to ask additional questions and to also help answer others' questions. Return guests cite the speedy response rate of hosts and the friendly, easy to understand responses by the hosts and other participants as the main reasons for coming back for another cup o' tea!
Early metrics on retention. It's still too early to draw conclusions about the Teahouse's impact on new editor retention, but, early data shows that 38% of new editors who participate at the Teahouse are still actively editing Wikipedia 2-4 weeks later, this is compared with 7% from a control group of uninvited new editors who showed similar first day editing activity. Additional metrics can be found on the Teahouse metrics page.
Nine new hosts welcomed to the Teahouse. Nine new hosts have been welcomed to the Teahouse during month one: Chicocvenancio, Cullen328, Hallows AG, Jeffwang, Mono, Tony1, Worm That Turned, Writ Keeper, and Nathan2055. Welcome to the Teahouse gang, folks!
Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is a really nice way to make new editors feel welcome.

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. -- Sarah (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ocaasi. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 18:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sarah (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: You're mentioned

Hello Ocaasi! No problem to be mentioned, thank you very much ;-) --Delfort (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem for me either. Thanks.-gadfium 20:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Nor for me, either. (I found your draft blog page and read what you said. It's fine.) --Orlady (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

Wikidata: The next big thing? An interview with Wikidata

Interview: Funds, fiduciaries, and the Foundation: the complex dynamics of scaling

News and notes: Projects launched in Brazil and the Middle East as advisors sought for funds committee

WikiProject report: The Land of Steady Habits: WikiProject Connecticut

Featured content: Assassination, genocide, internment, murder, and crucifixion: the bloodiest of the week

Arbitration report: Arbitration evidence-limit motions, two open cases

Technology report: Next Wikimedia deployment already in the pipeline and details of recent performance improvements

Talkback

Hello, Ocaasi. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 18:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sarah (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: You're mentioned

Hello Ocaasi! No problem to be mentioned, thank you very much ;-) --Delfort (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem for me either. Thanks.-gadfium 20:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Nor for me, either. (I found your draft blog page and read what you said. It's fine.) --Orlady (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

Wikidata: The next big thing? An interview with Wikidata

Interview: Funds, fiduciaries, and the Foundation: the complex dynamics of scaling

News and notes: Projects launched in Brazil and the Middle East as advisors sought for funds committee

WikiProject report: The Land of Steady Habits: WikiProject Connecticut

Featured content: Assassination, genocide, internment, murder, and crucifixion: the bloodiest of the week

Arbitration report: Arbitration evidence-limit motions, two open cases

Technology report: Next Wikimedia deployment already in the pipeline and details of recent performance improvements

Teahouse..ping!

Hi Ocaasi, just pinging you from the land of the Teahouse to say hi and that we haven't seen you for a while! We'd still love to have you participate as a host, but I also understand that we (Wikipedians!) do get busy sometimes with other things, on and off-wiki. If you'd like to still participate, great! We'd love your help answering questions and inviting editors to the Teahouse. If you don't think you have the time to participate right now, no problem, just please let me know! Thanks Ocaasi! Sarah (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ocaasi. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 14:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sarah (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for coordinating the High Beam opportunity! This is awesome, THANK YOU! Sarah (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Enjoy the account. Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I award this as you are beaming with HighBeam and letting 1000 others. Thank You :-) -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 16:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. Enjoy the account! Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Note that I have fleshed out the category a little for you. Warden (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! The category is very nice too. I'm sending out talk page messages now and will send out the userbox code; hopefully more will add it to their page. Cheers! Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam question

First of all, thanks so much for setting up the Highbeam accounts, it is incredibly helpful! I was wondering if you could help me out with citing sources found on the site, though. In this edit to Pierre Chambrin I tried to format the reference correctly but probably screwed it up, so any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks again!--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with it? Silver seren^C 18:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm checking it now and on first glance don't see a problem. Thanks for the help SS! Ocaasi^{t | c} 18:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks guys.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Original Barnstar
		For your fine work on the HighBeam partnership. Thank you! Carrite (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thanks for the barnstar! Ocaasi^{t | c} 21:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam account

Hi, my Highbeam sign up was approved but I am among those who have not receive the code. I did have my email enable but did not click "Enable e-mail from other users". Is that why I haven't receive the account activation code? Anyway, I just click it. Will I receive the code soon? I am eager to test it out. Thanks.—Chris!_c/t 21:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you need to enable email from other users, that's why it didn't send. We're going to send out another round of accounts before Monday. I'll try to do it as soon as possible, so you can get to trying it out! Ocaasi^{t | c} 21:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam question

First of all, thanks for allowing these subscriptions! I've just started trying it out, and I was wondering if there was a specific way you wanted the citations to be formatted. Would you just like a note added to the end that says "Archived on HighBeam" or use "HighBeam" as the publisher? Thanks, Glimmer721 ^talk 22:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Rather than having the publisher be just HighBeam, try this: <ref>{{cite web|title=National implementation committee approves funds for Swami Vivekananda values' education project|url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-2131107461.html#|publisher=US Fed News Service, Including US State News via [[HighBeam]] (subscription required)|accessdate=14 April 2012|date=6|month=September|year=2010}}</ref> Thanks for being so careful!Ocaasi^{t | c} 13:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

High Beam account

as i'm french let me tell you merci ! − MIRROR (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)You can use Google Translator, it is helpful! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 03:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

De rien! Ocaasi^{t | c} 11:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

First citation

I have added first citation from Highbeam, you can see it here. Can you tell me do I need to add anything else there (I have added subscription required and Highbeam name/link)! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 02:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Rather than having the publisher be just HighBeam, try this: <ref>{{cite web|title=National implementation committee approves funds for Swami Vivekananda values' education project|url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-2131107461.html#|publisher=US Fed News Service, Including US State News via [[HighBeam]] (subscription required)|accessdate=14 April 2012|date=6|month=September|year=2010}}</ref> Ocaasi^{t | c} 14:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Noted, I have sent a question by email to Highbeam help this morning (related to advanced search operators0 but have not received any reply still but have not got any reply still (it is evening 7.45 PM here UTC+5.30), also I don't think this should be asked in Highbeam help, so asking here:
Is there any easy way to understand for which article subscription is required? For example the article I referred was public content, so I removed "Subscription required" later! Currently I am opening the article in another web browser, where I am not signed in to Highbeam account to see if I can access it there! --Tito Dutta (Message) 14:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

They're probably not going to respond until at least Monday. I'd give them a few days. Subscription is required for any HighBeam article that doesn't load when you're not signed in. What do you mean by 'public content'? We just want to make sure readers who click on the link know they won't be able to read the full page at that link. Ocaasi^{t | c} 14:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam

Please see User talk:EdwardsBot#HighBeam messages, I suggest you run AWB through those pages and fix the error. I've also removed you from the EdwardsBot access list for now. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to fix it now. Any guidance on using AWB, which I am fairly new to, would be appreciated. Sorry about the f-up. Ocaasi^{t | c} 12:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Replied at EdwardsBot's talkpage - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Your sign

Can you add the </sup> at the end of your sign because it caused this problem and made my message in sup: [1] Yash t 101 08:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'm going to update all of the messages ASAP. Ocaasi^{t | c} 12:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Came here for same. Guess its okay! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Ocaasi, just a note to say thank you very much for the work you put into acquiring and organizing the Highbeam accounts. I've used mine already, and I can see it's going to make editing quite a bit easier. All the best,

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm very glad it's been helpful already. If you'd like, you can leave a note about your experience using the account at WP:HighBeam/Experiences. Cheers! Ocaasi^{t | c} 14:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks from me too. :) I've had a paid account for the past couple of years, and this saves a lot of money. J N 466 14:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! Glad to hear. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 16:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

And another thanks for your effort in making this service available. Looks like it should be useful. Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam account

Hi, I signed up for the Highbeam account and was approved, but I hadn't associated an email address with my account before, could you please resend the password to my email, I added my email to my Wikipedia account. Thanks Gsingh (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, another round of emails will be sent out in the next week. Thanks for your patience. Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Query

I would just like to know, how exactly are editors reviewed as worthy users of HighBeam? Thanks. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 16:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If you have 1000 edits and a 1-year old account, you are 'worthy' :) Even if you don't, you can put your name on the applications page and if there are available accounts I'll check into it. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 16:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have 8,500 + edits and I've been editing for 3 years ;) I have already placed my name in the list; I heard its unlimited number of accounts. Very generous of HighBeam I must say :) ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 18:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not quite unlimited, but so far we have about 500 accounts still available. And they are considering adding more to that if there's demand. So you'll definitely be in the next round, which I'll get to hopefully before May 1 at the latest. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

May 1? Oh my. I thought the activation process starts from April 16? I'd love it if I could get the account before April 24, as I'm working on a (hopeful) FA and I need some extra info to make the article perfect. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 08:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ankitbhatt, I'll see what I can do. If we don't send out the new accounts before the 24th, just ping me and I'll email your code to you. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 11:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking that extra effort :) Regards, ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 13:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam

Thanks, Ocaasi! I'll do my best! WhisperToMe (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Well done! Victuallers (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Activation

Heya, thanks for getting me an account. Can I activate it next week? I'm using a Public Computer and would like to activate it when I get home. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sure you can as it is mentioned. If you need a clarification from Ocaasi, poke him again ;) -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 06:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ansumang! Rsrikanth, the account code is yours and you can use it whenever you want. The 1-year period will begin whenever you register. Cheers! Ocaasi^{t | c} 11:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm looking forward to using it both onwiki and offwiki. Thank you very very much for giving us this opportunity. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Signpost Questions

Sorry for taking so long to actually get started on these. I'm still working through them, but i've just been kind of busy this week. Not to mention there's a lot of questions there and some of them are pretty difficult to properly articulate an answer. But i'll do my best. Silver seren^C 03:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You're doing a great job so far. Pick the questions that will best allow you to articulate your experience and share your views. Answer them in any order and only to the degree you think will be useful. Keep going! Ocaasi^{t | c} 14:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

And i'm done. Sorry it took so long. Silver seren^C 01:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations! I know it was a lot of questions. I'm going to read it very closely and see if I can throw in a few juicy follow-up questions. If we stay on track it should run next monday/tuesday. I think you're an ideal person to start the interview series off with, since you've been trying to bridge the divide. It is a hopeful note on which to begin. I'll keep you posted if there are any new questions, or such. Cheers!

And i've answered the new question you added. We good to go? Silver seren^C 00:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly the kind of well thought out response I was hoping for. I think we're good. Ocaasi^{t | c} 00:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam account

Hi, I signed up for the Highbeam account and was approved, but I hadn't associated an email address with my account before, could you please resend the password to my email, I added my email to my Wikipedia account. Thanks Gsingh (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, another round of emails will be sent out in the next week. Thanks for your patience. Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

High beam, subscriptions and templates

Thanks for the Highbeam account, hopefully it'll make digging up references easier!

Know anything about templates? I'm wondering if it's worth putting a | subscription = yes/no parameter into {{cite journal}}. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know much about templates, but I do think that would be a useful parameter. For now I just manually type in "(subscription required) in either the Title or Publisher field. I'll take a look at the template and propose it. Great idea! Ocaasi^{t | c} 11:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, {{Subscription required}} can be added to the reference after the cite template, before the closing ref tag. GRAPPLE X 14:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Grapple, I've added that as an example on the WP:HighBeam/Citations page. Cheers!

It's weird, but I along with numerous others, seem to feel the need to provide examples of my first use of Highbeam in a citation :) I also remembered to include the SR tag, but still think it's worth building it into the {{cite journal}} and related family of templates. [2] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

A good looking citation indeed. I'll add it to the examples at WP:HighBeam/Citations. The Citation Templates would be a nice medium-term goal. You're welcome to pursue it, meanwhile I'm just trying to make sure all of the accounts get out ok. Cheers!

FYI. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Query

I would just like to know, how exactly are editors reviewed as worthy users of HighBeam? Thanks. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 16:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If you have 1000 edits and a 1-year old account, you are 'worthy' :) Even if you don't, you can put your name on the applications page and if there are available accounts I'll check into it. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 16:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have 8,500 + edits and I've been editing for 3 years ;) I have already placed my name in the list; I heard its unlimited number of accounts. Very generous of HighBeam I must say :) ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 18:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not quite unlimited, but so far we have about 500 accounts still available. And they are considering adding more to that if there's demand. So you'll definitely be in the next round, which I'll get to hopefully before May 1 at the latest. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

May 1? Oh my. I thought the activation process starts from April 16? I'd love it if I could get the account before April 24, as I'm working on a (hopeful) FA and I need some extra info to make the article perfect. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 08:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ankitbhatt, I'll see what I can do. If we don't send out the new accounts before the 24th, just ping me and I'll email your code to you. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 11:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking that extra effort :) Regards, ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 13:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam

Thanks, Ocaasi! I'll do my best! WhisperToMe (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Well done! Victuallers (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Activation

Heya, thanks for getting me an account. Can I activate it next week? I'm using a Public Computer and would like to activate it when I get home. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sure you can as it is mentioned. If you need a clarification from Ocaasi, poke him again ;) -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 06:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ansumang! Rsrikanth, the account code is yours and you can use it whenever you want. The 1-year period will begin whenever you register. Cheers! Ocaasi^{t | c} 11:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm looking forward to using it both onwiki and offwiki. Thank you very very much for giving us this opportunity. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Signpost interview

I appreciate the problems both raise, but there's not an obvious solution consistent with house style.

On the first, the Signpost makes a distinction between titles and URLs, unlike many web publications, so for the time being, the page location should be something plainly descriptive (open to suggestions).
On the second, there isn't that I'm aware of; custom formatting tarnishes the professional appearance of the paper, and the current set-up isn't designed to handle the sort of nested headings you want to use. "The Facilitator: Silver seren" is a great subtitle, and I was sorry to have to bundle "Does Wikipedia Pay?" in there, but something's gotta give.

I'm impressed by the War and Peace extent of the interview, but for the mercy of our readers you might consider condensing to the most relevant material. I've made a start, but alas I won't be around for the rest of the pre-publication period, so for help you might be able to consult some of the other volunteers, or check previous issues to get an idea of how best to proceed. And thanks again for taking this on, it's looking great. Regards, Skomorokh 01:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Concern

Why does this say that i'm the "owner of WikiStrategies"? I don't even know what that is. Silver seren^C 02:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Just looked it up. Um...I have nothing to do with that or the actual owner. Silver seren^C 02:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I was originally interviewing Pete Forsyth, who is the owner of WikiStrategies. I thought I scrubbed all of that, where did you see it? The interview was moved here as well: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-04-16/Paid_editing. Sorry about that, we'll get it cleared up pronto. Ocaasi^{t | c} 02:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you were looking at an old draft. I CSD'd that page. Check the link above for the new version. Skomorokh did a little re-arranging and cut out a few pieces. I'm catching up on his edits, but they appear to make the interview tighter and more impactful, without changing your responses at all. Ocaasi^{t | c} 02:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, that current version looks good. I was just a bit confused. :P Silver seren^C 02:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Arabian Special Award

	Arabian Special award to you!
	You have been presented the arabian special award for your tireless work as a host at teahouse and inspiring others to join it Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

And I plan to rejoin teahouse, but I am afraid of people like Writ Keeper, Noleover , Sarah etc who suspected me a sockpuppet in the so- called 2012 March WOLfan Sockpuppet investigations and 20th tryer talkpage drama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monareal (talk • contribs) 06:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Signpost Questions

Sorry for taking so long to actually get started on these. I'm still working through them, but i've just been kind of busy this week. Not to mention there's a lot of questions there and some of them are pretty difficult to properly articulate an answer. But i'll do my best. Silver seren^C 03:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You're doing a great job so far. Pick the questions that will best allow you to articulate your experience and share your views. Answer them in any order and only to the degree you think will be useful. Keep going! Ocaasi^{t | c} 14:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

And i'm done. Sorry it took so long. Silver seren^C 01:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations! I know it was a lot of questions. I'm going to read it very closely and see if I can throw in a few juicy follow-up questions. If we stay on track it should run next monday/tuesday. I think you're an ideal person to start the interview series off with, since you've been trying to bridge the divide. It is a hopeful note on which to begin. I'll keep you posted if there are any new questions, or such. Cheers!

And i've answered the new question you added. We good to go? Silver seren^C 00:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly the kind of well thought out response I was hoping for. I think we're good. Ocaasi^{t | c} 00:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam account

Hi, I signed up for the Highbeam account and was approved, but I hadn't associated an email address with my account before, could you please resend the password to my email, I added my email to my Wikipedia account. Thanks Gsingh (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, another round of emails will be sent out in the next week. Thanks for your patience. Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

High beam, subscriptions and templates

Thanks for the Highbeam account, hopefully it'll make digging up references easier!

Know anything about templates? I'm wondering if it's worth putting a | subscription = yes/no parameter into {{cite journal}}. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know much about templates, but I do think that would be a useful parameter. For now I just manually type in "(subscription required) in either the Title or Publisher field. I'll take a look at the template and propose it. Great idea! Ocaasi^{t | c} 11:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, {{Subscription required}} can be added to the reference after the cite template, before the closing ref tag. GRAPPLE X 14:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Grapple, I've added that as an example on the WP:HighBeam/Citations page. Cheers!

It's weird, but I along with numerous others, seem to feel the need to provide examples of my first use of Highbeam in a citation :) I also remembered to include the SR tag, but still think it's worth building it into the {{cite journal}} and related family of templates. [3] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

A good looking citation indeed. I'll add it to the examples at WP:HighBeam/Citations. The Citation Templates would be a nice medium-term goal. You're welcome to pursue it, meanwhile I'm just trying to make sure all of the accounts get out ok. Cheers!

FYI. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Query

I would just like to know, how exactly are editors reviewed as worthy users of HighBeam? Thanks. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 16:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If you have 1000 edits and a 1-year old account, you are 'worthy' :) Even if you don't, you can put your name on the applications page and if there are available accounts I'll check into it. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 16:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have 8,500 + edits and I've been editing for 3 years ;) I have already placed my name in the list; I heard its unlimited number of accounts. Very generous of HighBeam I must say :) ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 18:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not quite unlimited, but so far we have about 500 accounts still available. And they are considering adding more to that if there's demand. So you'll definitely be in the next round, which I'll get to hopefully before May 1 at the latest. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

May 1? Oh my. I thought the activation process starts from April 16? I'd love it if I could get the account before April 24, as I'm working on a (hopeful) FA and I need some extra info to make the article perfect. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 08:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ankitbhatt, I'll see what I can do. If we don't send out the new accounts before the 24th, just ping me and I'll email your code to you. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 11:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking that extra effort :) Regards, ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 13:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam

Thanks, Ocaasi! I'll do my best! WhisperToMe (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Well done! Victuallers (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Activation

Heya, thanks for getting me an account. Can I activate it next week? I'm using a Public Computer and would like to activate it when I get home. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sure you can as it is mentioned. If you need a clarification from Ocaasi, poke him again ;) -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 06:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ansumang! Rsrikanth, the account code is yours and you can use it whenever you want. The 1-year period will begin whenever you register. Cheers! Ocaasi^{t | c} 11:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm looking forward to using it both onwiki and offwiki. Thank you very very much for giving us this opportunity. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Signpost interview

I appreciate the problems both raise, but there's not an obvious solution consistent with house style.

On the first, the Signpost makes a distinction between titles and URLs, unlike many web publications, so for the time being, the page location should be something plainly descriptive (open to suggestions).
On the second, there isn't that I'm aware of; custom formatting tarnishes the professional appearance of the paper, and the current set-up isn't designed to handle the sort of nested headings you want to use. "The Facilitator: Silver seren" is a great subtitle, and I was sorry to have to bundle "Does Wikipedia Pay?" in there, but something's gotta give.

I'm impressed by the War and Peace extent of the interview, but for the mercy of our readers you might consider condensing to the most relevant material. I've made a start, but alas I won't be around for the rest of the pre-publication period, so for help you might be able to consult some of the other volunteers, or check previous issues to get an idea of how best to proceed. And thanks again for taking this on, it's looking great. Regards, Skomorokh 01:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Concern

Why does this say that i'm the "owner of WikiStrategies"? I don't even know what that is. Silver seren^C 02:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Just looked it up. Um...I have nothing to do with that or the actual owner. Silver seren^C 02:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I was originally interviewing Pete Forsyth, who is the owner of WikiStrategies. I thought I scrubbed all of that, where did you see it? The interview was moved here as well: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-04-16/Paid_editing. Sorry about that, we'll get it cleared up pronto. Ocaasi^{t | c} 02:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you were looking at an old draft. I CSD'd that page. Check the link above for the new version. Skomorokh did a little re-arranging and cut out a few pieces. I'm catching up on his edits, but they appear to make the interview tighter and more impactful, without changing your responses at all. Ocaasi^{t | c} 02:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, that current version looks good. I was just a bit confused. :P Silver seren^C 02:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Arabian Special Award

	Arabian Special award to you!
	You have been presented the arabian special award for your tireless work as a host at teahouse and inspiring others to join it Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

And I plan to rejoin teahouse, but I am afraid of people like Writ Keeper, Noleover , Sarah etc who suspected me a sockpuppet in the so- called 2012 March WOLfan Sockpuppet investigations and 20th tryer talkpage drama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monareal (talk • contribs) 06:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

Arbitration analysis: Inside the Arbitration Committee Mailing List

Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren

News and notes: French language outreach, WikiTravel debate, and HighBeam reloaded

Discussion report: The future of pending changes

WikiProject report: The Butterflies and Moths of WikiProject Lepidoptera

Featured content: A few good sports: association football, rugby league, and the Olympics vie for medals

Arbitration report: Evidence submissions begin in Rich Farmbrough case, proposed decision in R&I Review

Technology report: MediaWiki 1.20wmf01 hits first WMF wiki, understanding 20% time, and why this report cannot yet be a draft

My HighBeam account

I was unable to have my HighBeam activation code e-mailed to me because my e-mail address was never validated on Wikipedia, help please. QuasyBoy (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you want to validate it? You can do so at Special:Preferences. Make sure you provide an email address and 'enable emails from other users'. If you don't want to use Wikipedia's email you can send an email to me confidentially at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and I'll reply to it with your code. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 21:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You didn't send me the account code yesterday, Did you forget? QuasyBoy (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi QuasyBoy. The email bot ran again yesterday and sent it to you. I'll try again manually, but it should have worked. Check your email in 5-10 minutes. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I sent you my e-mail from my Yahoo account. QuasyBoy (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I replied there with your code. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 22:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. When you recently edited Zilpaterol, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Marbling and Merck (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) 10:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Highbeam email

Hi there. I enabled emails from other users. Thanks for pointing that out. De FaultRyan 22:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks very much for the Highbeam subscription, I've used it for articles several times already ... Wasted Time R (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Awesome :) Ocaasi^{t | c} 12:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse

I plan to join teahouse but I fear Writ Keeper, Sarah and Noleover along with their fearful partner Charles.--Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

If you don't feel comfortable, it's ok not to join. Other editors are there to help you, so I'd recommend you use them to your advantage. Just remain civil and friendly and you won't have any issues. Ocaasi^{t | c} 14:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

But will these Users notice, inspect and attack me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monareal (talk • contribs) 16:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

These users are there to help you, so they should notice you. If you're doing something that is against policies or is uncivil, they will take note of it and ask you to stop. That shouldn't be seen as an attack, just an effort to ensure the safety of everyone in the project. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 18:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I rejoined it ,but Writ Keeper seems unwelcome. Nolever deals with me like any other user. --Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No point

There's really no point in posting stuff to Jimbo's talk page. It just creates a self perpetuating pat-each-other-on-the-back-because-we-have-the-same-opinion-as-Jimbo loop. Silver seren^C 18:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's important to engage those who are firmly against paid editing anyway. They resist it, but that's partly because they haven't seen it work positively (as WikiProject Cooperation and some of my irc channel work and assisting COI editors on individual articles has demonstrated). That's fine, they're rightly skeptical. They're also afraid that we're going to provide cover to the unethical PR editors, who I'm sure exist. I still very much support your efforts and think the more people know about them the less they'll consider paid editing automatically a bad thing. But the burden of proof is on those who want to facilitate and guide paid editing, to show that it can be done ethically and serve our mission as an encyclopedia. Ocaasi^{t | c} 19:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true, it's just annoying as hell to deal with. I'm just going to stay out of those sorts of discussions for now. There's no point in arguing with someone who doesn't even register what you're saying and keeps insulting the subject you're discussing. Anyways, when is the next interview planned to be up, two weeks? Silver seren^C 22:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Pete Forsyth from WikiStrategies, a paid Wikipedia consulting firm (no direct edits) is up for this coming Monday. Maybe I can stick to weekly interviews, which would be very cool. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 22:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

High Beam

Grazie Mille!

Thank you very much for delivering the Hig Beam account.--Demostene119 (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Prego! Ocaasi^{t | c} 14:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank a lot from me too, --Bramfab (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Ocaasi - for opening up Highbeam to so many Wikipedians, you thoroughly deserve the Brilliant Idea Barnstar. Many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Enjoy the account! Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam? Is that a beam high in the sky?--Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam is an online research service. They gave out 1000 free 1-year accounts to Wikipedia editors with 1 year and 1000 edits of experience. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It's good. I'm still playing with it. But congrats at following through on this, not just talking! Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

:) Thanks for the kind words Wehwalt. Ocaasi^{t | c} 22:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Colorful Bling

He's User:Access Denied who is global banned for running vandalism bots and personally harassing checkusers. The past few days there was a rash of his socks, including that account that was soon blocked via checkuser. German Wikipedia is not his home Wiki, with that account Colorful Bling maybe he has 10 edits total in de. Some steward will block that account soon. Secret ^account 17:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info and for keeping a close eye on things! Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Also thanks for the HighBeam, I already been using it on several articles. I have a question this website though. Paper of Record has several newspapers, including a very valuable archive on The Sporting News going back to 1887. The Sporting News was the leading authority on baseball back the early days of Baseball, and most of the information on baseball players avaliable before 1965 or so is unfortunately in there. It was free at one point but then it went under a paywall. I tried contacting them to see if a special account can be used for Wikipedians, but without much success. There's anything you could do about it. Thanks Secret ^account 17:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've contacted Paper of Record and will see if they're interested. Who knows?! Thanks for the idea. Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks let me know Secret ^account 22:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Webcite?

Will Highbeam permit Webcite of its pages which are used as reference? AshLin (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I tried it with [4] which archived at [5]. You can see that it archives the abstract only, as if you weren't logged in/didn't have an account. So the answer appears to be no, unless that is sufficient. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 19:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. :) AshLin (talk) 07:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Merci

Good morning Ocaasi,
Many thanks for your message about HighBeam. I am working now on these articles on wp:fr (fr:FrancEyE, fr:Grace Conkling and fr:Hilda Conkling) and many others. HighBeam will be great to find some informations. Have a nice day. Mike Coppolano (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful. If you like, you can leave a note about your experience at WP:HighBeam/Experiences. Cheers! Ocaasi^{t | c} 14:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Of Possible Interest

A discussion on how to improve the clarity of the COI guideline for PR professionals.[6] The idea being not to change any actual rules, but simply make current ones more clear. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 16:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. Clarification seems to be the most important first step. I'm reviewing it now. Cheers! Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Your listing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 March 28

As Moonriddengirl has recused herself from dealing with this listing I've decided to take a look. You say you are concerned that you paraphrased sources too closely. Are the sources you refer to the references given for each statement? It would make my life quicker and easier if I knew I only had to look at the given reference rather than having to try to find the relevant source myself. Dpmuk (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the article is quite precisely verified, the only concern is that the sentences too closely follow the given reference. Thanks for taking a look at this. Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

Investigative report: Spin doctors spin Jimmy's "bright line"

News and notes: Help-space revamp, WikiTravel RfC, and Justin Knapp scores a million edits

WikiProject report: Skeptics and Believers: WikiProject The X-Files

Featured content: A mirror (or seventeen) on this week's featured content

Arbitration report: Evidence submissions close in Rich Farmbrough case, vote on proposed decision in R&I Review

Technology report: Wikimedia Labs: soon to be at the cutting edge of MediaWiki development?

Highbeam

Do I not get this then? I see other rather less productive editors have been given it...♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You signed up in round 2, which should be delivered by May 1st. If you have 1000 edits and a 1 year old account, you should receive it without problems. Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

A very specific list of non-controversial edits in mainspace

Hi. You recommended on the WP:RFC/COI that "WP:COI should be expanded to identify specific situations where editing is and is not controversial.". You might be interested in a draft essay I started at User:Eclipsed/A very specific list of non-controversial edits in mainspace. Thanks. Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 19:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a great document and just the kind of guidance we need. I'd recommend switching to # rather than C# and R# as it will give actual numbers. I was a bit confused by those symbols and think it's self-explanatory given the section they are respectively in. Let's develop this further, possibly link it at WP:COOPERATION, and propose incorporating it somehow at WP:COI. Nice work! Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 19:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, I changed the lists to simple #, and it does look better. And yes, let's develop this further ;) Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 19:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stories Project

Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share.

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Kamal Abbas

I've now worked through this article investigating your close paraphrasing concerns and there wasn't too much that was worrying. I've removed a couple of sentences that I though followed the source too closely and which were significantly stand alone that removing them did not effect the flow of the article. However I also feel that a lot of the paragraph starting "In September 2007 Abbas and another writer..." is also too closely paraphrased and obviously this can not simply be removed as a lot of what follows is based upon it. Are you happy to give re-writing it a go?

My other concern with the article is not close-paraphrasing but about the number of quotes used. This is always a difficult one for a person like this where we obviously have to report their views so I don't think it warrants immediate attention, especially as most of the news reports also quote extensively, but it is something that may be worth bearing in mind if you're editing the article in future. Dpmuk (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm somewhat relieved, and I want to thank you for doing that tedious task. The other articles I listed are hopefully not any worse, since I wrote them in a similar style. I'll try to keep a closer eye on close paraphrasing in my ongoing content writing. Thanks again, Dpmuk. Ocaasi^{t | c} 16:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ping

As per your request, I'm pinging you as a reminder :). Its April 25, and right now I need my HighBeam account more than ever (the FAC seems to be just around the corner). I know I'm asking a lot, but is it possible for me to receive the activation code today? I'd be really obliged. Thanks! ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 08:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sent. :) Good luck at FAC. Ocaasi^{t | c} 11:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Many many thanks for this Ocaasi :D. I'm already finding it useful (I was able to replace an unreliable reference with a perfectly reliable one). Thanks for the luck! Cheers, ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 14:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I seem to have been approved but have no password.(Lihaas (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)).

Lihaas, wait until May 1, then it will be sent out. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 21:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

How do I get Highbeam?

I saw a message on the talk page of someone who had an interest in an article I was working on. I followed the directions but didn't get an email sent to me.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Accounts will be sent out by May 1. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Have I done what I need to?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Well, you put your name on the 'approved page' rather than the 'applications page', but it's fine. Ocaasi^{t | c} 21:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I knew I wasn't "approved". I got my information from the talk page of someone who already had been. Okay, thanks.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Activation Code on Highbeam

Bonjour Ocaasi
Could you give an example of activation code ? Impossible to log in. I don't understand.
Thanks.
Mike Coppolano (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Activation codes were emailed to every user who applied. Did you receive yours? To activate your account, go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1 and enter the information, including your code. That's it. Let me know what you need help with. Ocaasi^{t | c} 23:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ocasii. I have not received my activation code. A message : "An error occurred on the page you were attempting to view. This error has been logged and will be reviewed by our technical staff. We apologize for the inconvenience." ?! Mike Coppolano (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Mike, you definitely need your code in order to activate your account. I just sent it out again today, so please check the email you provided in Special:Preferences. We'll sort it out. Ocaasi^{t | c} 01:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I doesn't read that message before log in Higbeam ... I' tryed to loging again. Impossible to change the e-mail. ... Mike Coppolano (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It's ok ! Thanks a lot. Mike Coppolano (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

It's a word we don't say nearly often enough around here. Thank you for all your work on the Highbeam accounts. Lots of editors are benefiting from the access - and just as importantly, countless readers will benefit from the improvement to our content that this has enabled. Thanks for keeping the core objective of Wikipedia clearly in your sights. Risker (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome :) This has actually been fun getting to cross paths with a lot of our most prolific editors. Also, good for us, good for HighBeam--I like a win-win. Ocaasi^{t | c} 01:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I want to echo this - I keep checking the calendar to see if it's May 1 yet! Thank you so much. I would buy you a beer if (a) it were legal where I lived and (b) we had any physical proximity! Alas. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to get them out ASAP. You're welcome. I'll take the beer in spirit. Cheers! Ocaasi^{t | c} 19:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that wasn't meant as a criticism! I just feel like I'm 5 and waiting for it to be Christmas. But instead of cool toys or whatever, I get access to, y'know, a significant swath of the sum of human knowledge. And you've helped make that possible! :D Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I took it as a compliment. Thank you! Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Death of Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb

I think this article is largely good as well. There are two sentences that I think follow the source a little too closely and so should be re-written, namely the one in Background beginning "He was a seventh-grade student..." and the one in Mutulation starting "After Al-Jazeera broadcast..." but even these are border line cases in my opinion. As I'm dropping you a note anyway I'll also mention that I don't find any problems with Wael Khalil. Dpmuk (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you?

Are you User:Olessi Mir Almaat Ali Almaat ☏ 09:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope, no relation. Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"Close Paraphrasing"

Hi Ocaasi, I noticed you added a the {{close paraphrasing}} tag to a few articles that you had edited back at the end of March, but left no clue as to what those articles might be paraphrasing (i.e. the plagiarized source). I'm trying to clear the Copyright Problems backlog, but I didn't want to clear these pages that I could find no problems with before I heard from you. You mentioned that another editor had raised concerns, but gave no other clues as to what the problem areas might be. Please get back to me soon, thanks! -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam code

Hi, I have not received the code from the first round. Bronto 1 May 1:51

I need you to email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and I'll respond with the code. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 01:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Consultant: Pete Forsyth

News and notes: Showdown as featured article writer openly solicits commercial opportunities

Recent research: Barnstars work; Wiktionary assessed; cleanup tags counted; finding expert admins; discussion peaks; Wikipedia citations in academic publications; and more

Discussion report: 'ReferenceTooltips' by default

WikiProject report: The Cartographers of WikiProject Maps

Featured content: Featured content spreads its wings

Arbitration report: R&I Review remains in voting, two open cases

Technology report: What Git means for end users, design controversies and pertinent poll results

Ocassi Please!

Please open this link! USERICOM.117.207.232.59 (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

EdwardsBot access

Hello, Ocaasi. You have new messages at User talk:EdwardsBot/Access list.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Today I happened across your WP:PSCOI. It was a breath of fresh air versus the mindboggling legalese of WP:COI. Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Context is at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Clarification_requested Woz2 (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Woz! I read that thread and think the technical or theoretical definition of conflict of interest is actually not important. It's really about how you manage bias. If you have a clear bias, an interest which is unrelated to Wikipedia's interest, then you should follow certain concrete, best practices. That's all it's about. Whether you value your interest more or less or equal to Wikipedia's misses the point, because most people aren't able to self-evaluate their bias anyway. What PSCOI says is, if you might have a strong bias, or even just something to gain from not being neutral, then do the following... Ocaasi^{t | c} 03:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

E-mail

hello,

can you check now if my e-mail was enabled? Thanks.--GoP _T ^C _N 08:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll manually email any codes that couldn't deliver by Friday (ok, Monday at the latest). Cheers! Ocaasi^{t | c} 12:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam

Hi, thanks for highbeam! I was wondering though what the deal wikipedia made with them. Are the foundation funding it to cover its editors? Ah I see Wikipedia:HighBeam..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yup, no strings attached. Ocaasi^{t | c} 12:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks from me also. Already done a few quick searches and mightily impressed! Excellent. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Great to hear! Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For successfully arranging a potentially hugely productive agreement with Highbeam! Great job! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope it brings you much useful research! Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

My email is set up now!

Please re-send the code. Thanks!! Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam - Thank You!

Thank You for your swift action. Now Solved! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam email

reponse to [ http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:Esceptic0&diff=prev&oldid=55901931 this edit]. I have actually received the code, and opened the account Esceptic0 | ✉ ✍. 16:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, great. Enjoy! Ocaasi^{t | c} 16:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Email activated now

Thanks for the Highbeam account. I recently changed my email address, but I'd forgotten it needed to be activated before the change was effective, so I've fixed that now.

Looking forward to trying this out. Malleus Fatuorum 16:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

E-mail

hello,

I send you an e-mail :) Regards.--GoP _T ^C _N 16:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I just sent your code. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 16:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam - new email?

Hi there, I just got chosen for a Highbeam account but the email with the activation code was sent to an old Yahoo account that I used when I started on WP 5 years ago. And now, it seems, Yahoo deactivated it due to my lack of use... which I suppose is fair enough. But now I have no code and can't get the one they sent :( Should I write directly to Highbeam regarding this issue or do you have some mysterious power that might help me out? Thanks and sorry for the mess! Malick78 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, just send me an email from your current account at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and I'll give you your code. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've now changed the WP email to be my new one... so, in theory, any email sent now via WP will get to me. Thx! Malick78 (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll send it now. Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Got it and it works!! Thanks a lot for all your work dealing with me and others ;) Malick78 (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

E-mail 2

Thanks for the Highbeam account. You are right, I have not checked the box to receive the mail. I've just done it. Please send me the information. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Done Ocaasi^{t | c} 23:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

RE: HighBeam: Email needed

Done(Lihaas (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)).

Done Ocaasi^{t | c} 23:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

RE: HighBeam: Email needed

Hi Ocaasi, I have enabled my settings in preferences. I can now receive emails from "emailuser". --RajeshPandey (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I emailed it to you directly. Enjoy! Ocaasi^{t | c} 23:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I got the code. --RajeshPandey (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vandry.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the reviewer's talk page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:16pm • 12:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Re:High Beam

Hi Ocaasi, everything seems to be ok about my email settings, I usually get mails from Wikipedia without problems. I just wrote a direct mail to your email address. Thank you! --Magnum2008 (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll sent it from the email you wrote me. Just takes a minute. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 22:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

High Beam

Until now I did not get the access code. I changed my email address now, please try again. Thank you, --Six days fan (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Communicator: Phil Gomes

News and notes: Hong Kong to host Wikimania 2013

In the news: What does Wikipedia call an expert; and untruths in biographies ... again.

WikiProject report: Say What?: WikiProject Languages

Featured content: This week at featured content: How much wood would a Wood Duck chuck if a Wood Duck could chuck wood?

Arbitration report: Proposed decision in Rich Farmbrough, two open cases

Technology report: Search gets faster, GSoC gets more detail and 1.20wmf2 gets deployed

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

Special report: Wikimedia and the "seismic shift" towards open-access research publication

News and notes: Finance debate drags on as editor survey finds Wikipedia too bureaucratic

WikiProject report: Welcome to Wikipedia with a cup of tea and all your questions answered - at the Teahouse

Featured content: Featured content is red hot this week

Arbitration report: R&I Review closed, Rich Farmbrough near closure

Technology report: Cross-wiki watchlist controversy; and is "go file a bug" really a useful response?

Paid Editing Series

Hi Ocaasi, how's it going? If you're looking for someone else to interview for the Paid Editing Series in the Signpost, I'd like to volunteer. I think I may be the first Wikipedian to start a new article for the purposes of digital PR, and get that article into mainspace without breaking any rules. I wrote an essay about my approach (which has some very strict requirements, like having a separate user account for paid edits, and I consulted with ArbCom, WMF, and a longtime admin to develop that approach). I'd would love to talk to you further about it, if you're interested. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 05:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I would be open to participating as well. While not having as extreme a position as Herostratus, I would consider myself more in the anti-camp than pro, at least compared to where the conversation is now. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 20:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Paid Editing Discussion

Hi Ocaasi. I hope you don't take offense to my comments regarding Herostratus' questions for the SignPost. I believe and appreciate your approach to give both sides air-time, but also felt some of the questions weren't designed (I'm sure not intentionally) to actually allow him to present his viewpoint, but seemed setup to discredit it. I would love to see more bipartisan efforts that are respectful of viewpoints from both sides of the aisle that could find compromise and I would like to give that side a fair opportunity to present an intellectual discussion. I shared a Huffington Post story on Cooperation from the CIPR CEO that I felt was in a very respectful and balanced tone with reasonable best practices. We could all (myself included) take a lesson from their playbook of cooperation and reason.

In any case, I thought this was worth sharing as a conversation starter in the CREWE group. I'm not sure it will actually pass muster with notability, but the point is as follows. This organization contacted me asking if they could hire me to write their Wikipedia article. I whipped it up for free in a couple hours. I had no intention of doing so, but I think it shows them in a fairly negative light simply because of what is available in sources.

CREWE says PR people want the same as Wikipedia, an accurate, complete and balanced article. I think this article is all of those things, but I don't think a PR person would want it. I find that companies really want bias articles, and it's a lot of work to work with a company to create neutral ones. Anyways, it's an interesting conversation to challenge the alleged alignment. Not to be antagonistic, but to pose a challenging question. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 00:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey David. I don't take offense to the suggestions and I appreciate them coming before rather than after the interview is published! I responded on the talk page. If you have any other questions you think were [unintentionally] biased, let me know. I also enjoyed the CIPR bio. CIPR has been slightly more conciliatory than PRSA, more apology than advocacy. I think that lines up with your view. Not all the CREWE folks share that, as you know. Great that you did some 'pro bono' work. Good practice for you. I'll take a look and leave a comment if I see anything. It's also a great point that having an article on Wikipedia doesn't mean 'only the good stuff'. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Ocaasi^{t | c} 01:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yup, actually I do loads of pro-bono work. Last night I did my first AfC assessments. I would think any decent paid editor would also get their feet wet in volunteer work. My objective is to duplicate - as best I can - the efforts of an extraordinarily dedicated volunteer. I write my own controversy sections, legal disputes and criticisms just as a volunteer would. Ever try to get a company to approve copy that includes their layoffs in the '80s? PR agencies don't have the backbone in a "yes maam" culture. Additionally, they risk contentious situations with their clients and put large PR budgets at risk by enforcing ethics on a tiny Wikipedia project.

I say more power to anyone who makes a similar commitment to ethics; to disclose everything available in reliable sources, but - having mountains of editing behavior to draw on - it's ridiculous to say PR people at-large, as a group, should be allowed to edit their own articles en-masse. Or to say that companies simply want to distribute balanced information, when I know for a fact their nature is to lobby for bias articles.

Wikipedia is the last bastion of truly independent, neutral and informative media in a world filled with sensational click-hungry headlines and advertising-driven bias. Economics have made it difficult to find sources that are truly informative.

Anyways, I'm going on a rant. I didn't see your Talk page response and I went ahead and made some edits, linked to the diff and invited you to discuss over at that page. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 02:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that AfC is maybe the one place on the entire site I wouldn't want paid editors doing pro bono work. AfC is the gateway to Wikipedia, and if it gets staffed with people who are under scrutiny for being inadvertently or intentionally lax about inclusion standards, it could become an issue. That's no comment at all on you personally. I enjoy your dedication and your perspective. I also think AfC is a place for people who have done A LOT of work page patrolling, creating new articles, and engaging in Deletion debates. Maybe you could partner with a mentor, someone who's experienced at AfC? Or only work on decline articles until you come across some really really solid ones. What do you think? Ocaasi^{t | c} 02:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I do have a mentor silly ;-)

I rejected every single article, but one. From the looks of it, that's somewhat normal.

Actually what is awkward for me is being the one to reject so much and/or tell people their articles/edits aren't good. Because my identity is disclosed and I could build real-world animosity among my professional colleagues who ask for stupid articles.

There's all kinds of potentially awkward situations. What if I reject someone's article, and someone thinks I'm just trying to push out competitors? Or what if I make edits to an article on a volunteer basis, then later on I end up working on it with a COI? I just wrote a somewhat negative article about a company that people could think of as a competitor. How might that look?

In the meanwhile, the AFC people I talked to on the AfC talk page are fretting because they have thousands of articles backed up and I'm just stacking on top of their workload.

On the other hand, why would you categorize me as a paid editor? If you include all the articles I've written as personal favors or for petty cash (basically as a personal favor) I think my volunteer work is close to my paid work in volume.

I don't have all the answers, but I don't want to be so paranoid about how things might be perceived that I can no longer do volunteer work in areas I'm interested in.

In the meanwhile I also do real-world volunteer work. I'm brand-loyal to Wells Fargo, customer of 10+ years and it sounds like their heritage department is loaded with historical images they might contribute thanks to my persistent probing. What if they later became a client of EthicalWiki LLC?

What do you think? Food for thought. Most AfC are rejects anyway - it would be easy to stick to that ;-) User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 03:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... I approved two articles and both have been marked as advert, but I can't fathom what specific language is advert. These were the best from a large lot of rejects. What do you think? Is my judgement off since I am often a COI editor? [7] [8] User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 06:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) AFC is surely backlogged and could use help from more volunteers. One of the major AFC volunteers recently retired, and their absence is very noticeable by the large backlog size. But for this case, I'd suggest doing everything except moving AFC articles into mainspace. If you find a draft that's ready, you can always leave a review note for other editors. And if you see a draft you think might have a chance, feel free to help improve it. Often, the best bet is to just stub the whole draft and fix up the refs. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 11:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yah, they mentioned a few other people were out too. I'm going to stick to rejections. Like I said that's most of them and could easily help clear most of the queue. I did the same in helping some {{request edit}}s - posting feedback but not actually approving edits. I got started in my first AfD discussions as well as my mentor requested. But I feel uneasy wondering if I'm going to start getting hate mail ;-) User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 14:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

My HighBeam account?

Hello Ocaasi, Sorry to bother you here, but I was approved for a HighBeam account and my Wikipedia email is OK now, but as far I know I never received the code. I was away for 2 weeks recently but still I believe I did not yet get the email. Can you check for me? I would very much appreciate it. Thank you, Invertzoo (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll send it over to your email. Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have the same issue. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC) PS:Nevermind, I thought it went to my other email. All is well. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I was approved today but it appears I also did not receive the code. Thanks. Mizzou415 (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

AfC -> request edit

Would it be possible to address request edits the same way we do AfCs?

They have a very built up process with great templates, a wizard, the whole nine yards. I decline an AfC with two letters, yet it gives the submitted a bunch of links and information.

Could we create a similar page, using nearly identical templates?

User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 20:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's an interesting idea, but one of the differences between Request Edits (REs) and AfC is at AfC the draft is right there. If a centralized RE project was launched, how would it incorporate the draft so that you weren't bouncing around between the article and the RE. I think it's worth giving Wikipedia:Edit_requests a read if you haven't already. Particularly this:

{{EP}} and {{ESp}} are standard templates for responding to edit requests for protected and semi-protected pages respectively, with a variety of options. For example, {{EP|?}} / {{ESp|?}} is convenient for responding to insufficiently specific requests. {{EP}} and {{ESp}} should not be subst:ed...Once the request has been responded to, the responding editor should disable the protected edit request template by changing the |answered= parameter to "yes" — eg {{edit protected|answered=yes}}.

So there are already easy templates to mark requests as made or not made. Does that help, or are you looking for more? Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... I guess the difference is it's easy to mark that the request has been fulfilled, but difficult to reject it, explain why and ask the submitter to improve it. AfC has something like a 90% rejection rate and I think request edits would be similar, but we don't need a project page for it. For example:

Request edit Example

{{request edit}} I would like to add promotional material about how great our organization is based on this YouTube video our company has produced.

{{AFC submission|d|v|declinets=20120320052336|decliner=King4057|}}

I'm looking through the EP stuff now too. It's mostly geared towards edit-protected pages. If we could add a few more for advert, reliable sources, etc. I think that would do just as well. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 20:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, it has one for RS too! I'm going to give it a try, sticking to rejections. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 21:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This is good enough. Check it out [9]. What do you think? Is it weird for me to do this too? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 21:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that mostly works. It clears the edit request and also leaves an explanation. The only quibble is that the EP template is technically for protected articles rather than COI situations or just requests on unprotected articles. There might be some use for an ECOI template which is specifically for COI editors, a template we don't have at the moment. I don't like duplicating things that are already there though, so maybe your EP use is sufficient even though it's a bit a technical stretch. Ocaasi^{t | c} 18:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. I'll probably tone done my volunteer contributions in this area in the future, due to how they might be interpreted and issues with my real-life identity being disclosed, but I think I learned a lot in the process. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 21:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey

Teahouse logo

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

From the editor: New editor-in-chief

News and notes: Two new Wikimedia fellows to boost strategies for tackling major issues

WikiProject report: Trouble in a Galaxy Far, Far Away....

Featured content: Lemurbaby moves it with Madagascar: Featured content for the week

Arbitration report: No open arbitration cases pending

Technology report: On the indestructibility of Wikimedia content

Help Project newsletter : Issue 1

The Help Project Newsletter
Issue I - May 2012

Project news

the wub has been appointed as a Wikimedia Community Fellow to lead a data-driven improvement of the English Wikipedia's help documentation, and will be working closely with the Help Project. You can read more about his plans at Wikipedia:Help Project/Community fellowship or in this Signpost article, and he has just released a first report on progress so far.
The project's pages have had a major redesign, introducing tabs in order to make them more usable. If you haven't stopped by recently then check them out!
A table of statistics is now available for all pages in Category:WikiProject Help Project, this includes page views, word counts and a variety of readability scores. This should be helpful in prioritising improvement work and finding redundant pages.
{{Breadcrumb2}} is a new template for making attractive navigational breadcrumbs. This may be useful for linking help pages.
This newsletter was started :-)

From the editor

Hi, and welcome to the first issue of the Help Project newsletter! This is a new monthly initiative to keep project members and the wider community informed about our work to improve Wikipedia's help pages. Any comments or suggestions for future issues are welcome at Wikipedia:Help Project/Newsletter.

I've initially sent this to all existing members of the project, if you don't wish to receive the newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name. Conversely if you've just stumbled on this newsletter (perhaps through talk page stalking) and want to receive it in future then please feel free to sign up!

the wub "?!" 16:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Tasks

Help:Diff needs to be updated for the new diff styles.

Chiropractic

Hey,

Seems like the effort we put in didn't change much. .. sigh Javsav (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Javsav. It's been almost a year since I looked at the Chiro page. I thought and hoped Puhlaa was keeping it in fair condition. Is it that bad? Ocaasi^{t | c} 06:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Tropical plants

Hello, How are you? I need your help. I thank you your help in the articles. I ask you: Can you find more people willing writing in tropical trees, genera and families? I ask you if you could enlarge some articles making better known this group of trees in Wikipedia, adding links to genera and families and writing information and asking people if they are interested in writing about topics as tropical trees articles, tropical forest articles or botanical or biodiversity articles. Do you know Wikipedia forums that could be interested about these type of articles? They are welcome too. I thank you very much.

I am from Spain and my mother language is not English language. Many country side areas, and Natural areas and Living beings are in Countries where population cannot collaborate with Wikipedia, but their Natural World and its highly economically valuable species are very important too in the human knowledge and developtment of the mankind. People should have information because these matters are important, not just a curiosity only. This unknow world is from Poles to ecuator, in unoccupied oceanic areas closely to Europe, in Deserts as Sahara, or whatever. But to me the main aim is to gather the abundant information disperse about living communities and living beings that have existed for millions of years because they are disappearing and in 20 years they will are not longer exist. Curritocurrito (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Curious

Not to be too prying, but curious about your experience being recruited to help on an AfD? User:King4057 05:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey King. I'm not sure what you mean. Articles for Deletion (AfD) is an open process and anyone can comment on cases. Articles for Creation (AfC) is also open, although it benefits from a good amount of experience doing new page patrolling and new article creation. I started at AfC through the irc help channel where I worked with probably a hundred editors on their drafts. That gave me a good sense of what the issues where, and 9/10 times it always came down to needing good sources. Not sure if that answers at all, but let me know how I can better address it. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 06:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to your first paid experience RE consulting for deletion review. I don't know if the details are confidential, but I was just curious what your experience was being on the other side. User:King4057 04:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, gotcha. I thought about the offer but decided it wasn't the right move, at least right now. The way I was 'recruited' was actually through another paid editor who didn't want to take on that case. I'll keep that person confidential. I basically was just in the right place at the right time and was offered the 'job'. I can't tell you what the other side is like; although I was tempted, it threatened too much of my ongoing work and I choose not to take it on. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 13:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Aww, too bad. It would have been interesting to get some perspective from the other side of the fence, but I see what you mean. User:King4057 16:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

High beam

I have not received my code, although I have received wiki e-mails since your notice, I was approved. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, so much, for your prompt response. I have the e-mail. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation endorses open-access petition to the White House; pending changes RfC ends

Recent research: Supporting interlanguage collaboration; detecting reverts; Wikipedia's discourse, semantic and leadership networks, and Google's Knowledge Graph

WikiProject report: Experts and enthusiasts at WikiProject Geology

Featured content: Featured content cuts the cheese

Arbitration report: Fæ and GoodDay requests for arbitration, changes to evidence word limits

Technology report: Developer divide wrangles; plus Wikimedia Zero, MediaWiki 1.20wmf4, and IPv6

Sorry

Sorry I completely dropped the ball on the Signpost interview thingy. I, at any rate in this one instance at least, suck. The reason (not excuse!) is that things just had a perfect storm of craziness here in in real life, both with work and personal stuff, and I just hit a wall and haven't been able to get on Wikipedia -- to some extent due to not having any free time, and also beyond that, emotionally. I'm just starting to get out from under now, but slowly.

Sorry to have let you down so badly! Hopefully you guys had a crossword puzzle to run or something. I certainly owe you one Ocaasi. Herostratus (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Host feedback needed at the Teahouse!

Hi! We're seeking your feedback as a current or formal host at the Teahouse about the project. Please stop by and lend your voice at your convenience, here. Thanks :) Sarah (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

IRC

I'd like to chat with you on IRC sometime. Will you be online anytime soon? Pine^✉ 08:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, it's been a long time since I've been on IRC. I'll try to pop in over the weekend. Or we could pick a time and try and meet. Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

Special report: WikiWomenCamp: From women, for women

News and notes: Editors want most funding for technical areas, while widespread ignorance of WMF board elections and chapters persists; voting still live on Commons best picture

Discussion report: Watching Wikipedia change

WikiProject report: Views of WikiProject Visual Arts

Featured content: On the lochs

Arbitration report: Two motions for procedural reform, three open cases, Rich Farmbrough risks block and ban

Technology report: Report from the Berlin Hackathon

Pending changes

Remember the whole pending changes thing?

I thought I should let you know that I mentioned you at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012#Another trial

Yaris678 (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

Special report: Springer's misappropriation of Wikimedia content "the tip of the iceberg"

News and notes: Foundation finance reformers wrestle with CoI

WikiProject report: Counter-Vandalism Unit

Featured content: The cake is a pi

Arbitration report: Procedural reform enacted, Rich Farmbrough blocked, three open cases

Technology report: To support or not to support IPv6, and why knowing when this report was last updated might be getting easier

The Tea Leaf - Issue Four

Hi! Welcome to the fourth issue of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter for the Teahouse!

Teahouse pilot wraps up after 13 weeks After being piloted on English Wikipedia starting in February, the Teahouse wrapped up its pilot period on May 27, 2012. We expect this is just the beginning for the Teahouse and hope the project will continue to grow in the months to come!

Thank you and congratulations to all of the community members who participated - and continue to participate!

What you've all been waiting for: Teahouse Pilot Report is released! We look forward to your feedback on the methodology and outcomes of this pilot project.
....and if a pilot report wasn't enough, the Teahouse Pilot Metrics Report is out too! Dive into the numbers and survey results to learn about the impact the Teahouse has made on English Wikipedia.
Teahouse shows positive impact on new editor retention and engagement

409 new editors participated during the entire pilot period, with about 40 new editors participating in the Teahouse per week.
Two weeks after participating, 33% of Teahouse guests are still active on Wikipedia, as opposed to 11% of a similar control group.
New editors who participated in the Teahouse edit 10x the number of articles, make 7x more global edits, and 2x as much of their content survives on Wikipedia compared to the control group.

Women participate in the Teahouse 28% of Teahouse participants were women, up from 9% of editors on Wikipedia in general, good news for this project which aimed to have impact on the gender gap too - but still lots to be done here!
New opportunities await for the Teahouse in phase two as the Teahouse team and Wikipedia community examine ways to improve, scale, and sustain the project. Opportunities for future work include:

Automating or semi-automating systems such as invites, metrics and archiving
Experimenting with more ways for new editors to discover the Teahouse
Building out the social and peer-to-peer aspects further, including exploring ways to make answering questions easier, creating more ways for new editors to help each other and for all participants to acknowledge each other's efforts
Growing volunteer capacity, continuing to transfer Teahouse administration tasks to volunteers whenever possible, and looking for new ways to make maintenance and participation easier for everyone.

Want to know how you can lend a hand at the Teahouse? Become a host! Learn more about what makes the Teahouse different than other help spaces on Wikipedia and see how you can help new editors by visiting here.
Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is really encouraging to new Wikipedians.

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

Investigative report: Is the requests for adminship process 'broken'?

News and notes: Ground shifts while chapters dither over new Association

Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

WikiProject report: The Punks of Wikipedia

Featured content: Taken with a pinch of "salt"

Arbitration report: Three open cases, GoodDay case closed

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Orphan Pages

Thanks for the explanation for Orphan Pages (re: Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement); I'd thought that had been used as a reason to delete the pages of webcomics creators a few years back (it wasn't).Randimason (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Indeed, Orphan pages should be tagged not deleted (or even better, linked to), unless there are other reasons for the deletion. Glad my comment helped. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 19:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Of possible interest

Hi Ocaasi. The plain and simple COI document has been mentioned extensively in relation to this essay Dennis Brown started that I also contributed substantially to. I thought you might be interested in participating in this essay as well.

I also thought - as the major contributor to COI editing on Wikipedia - I would draw your attention to my comments here. It kind of feels funny contributing where I actually have a COI personally. I'm not sure if I want to write an article on EthicalWiki (could I do so neutrally? probably not), but I'm particularly interested in seeing the approach reflected on the article - meaning providing quality content that meets Wikipedia's content needs to the site's editors as a non-controversial way of contributing. Since the media is focused on the problem statement of the report, I'm not sure my goal can be achieved without using SocialFresh as a source, so I leave it up to impartial editors to determine if it is a RS and what content of value may be added, etc. User:King4057 22:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi King! Hope you're doing well. I'm checking out both links and will leave comments at those pages. Cheers! Ocaasi^{t | c} 19:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I went through with it and made an AFC on EthicalWiki[10]. But really, most of the sources in that article are about my views on COI editing on Wikipedia anyway, rather than EthicalWiki itself. I really think this idea of transparent content marketing, comparisons with traditional publishing, the Bright Line, and understanding Wikipedia's content needs is the right approach. It would help balance the article that is of course focused on the long (better documented) history of impropriety and CREWE's lobbying with a real solution-minded concept. User:King4057 20:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW, whatever happened to the paid editing series in the Signpost? I was looking forward to the one with Jimbo. User:King4057 00:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

Op-ed: A call for editorial input in developing new Creative Commons licensing

News and notes: "Mystical" Picture of the Year; run-up to Wikimania DC; RfA reform 2012

In the news: Wales enters extradition battle; Wikipedia's political bias

Recent research: Edit war patterns, deleters vs. the 1%, never used cleanup tags, authorship inequality, higher quality from central users, and mapping the wikimediasphere

WikiProject report: Summer Sports Series: WikiProject Athletics

Featured content: A good week for the Williams

Arbitration report: Three open cases

Technology report: Second Visual Editor prototype launches

Question at WP:CO-OP

Hi Ocaasi, WP:CO-OP has been pretty quiet lately, and I haven't had any response to a request (admittedly, one with some complicating factors) on the Paid Editor Help page, which I first posted last week. Would you have any time to review my post and weigh in, if you have any thoughts? Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi WWB, I'll try to take a look at it this weekend. Cheers! Ocaasi^{t | c} 19:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Ocaasi, just thought I'd check in again about this. It's been awful quiet around WP:CO-OP lately. And if you're too busy, that's cool, just let me know. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

What about NewsBank?

I asked the question here. Although I have HighBeam access now, I haven't used it. A library I go to has NewsBank but who knows how long they will? This has been a very valuable resource for my contributions to Wikipedia. I was told to ask you how you got the HighBeam access started.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Help Project newsletter : Issue 2

The Help Project Newsletter
Issue II - June 2012

Project news

Progress on the help redesign fellowship continues apace. In-person usability testing is due to start next week, watch this space for results!
A large survey about help pages was conducted. Responses are still coming in, but preliminary results are available.
A new gadget has been proposed to make it easier for new- and non-editors to leave feedback about help pages. Please test it and leave your thoughts.
In somewhat-related-project-news: the Teahouse has wrapped up its pilot phase with an extensive report. Planning and discussion is underway for phase 2.
A discussion is taking place about the purpose and future of the venerable Community portal.

From the editor

Hello from the Help Project, and welcome to the second issue of our newsletter!

The biggest project I've been working on this month has been a large survey of users to find out what they think of our current help pages. Preliminary results from this are now available, although there are more responses trickling in from the lower edit count groups since a batch of email invitations were recently sent out. Finalised results and further analysis should be posted next week.

Any comments or suggestions for future issues are welcome at Wikipedia:Help Project/Newsletter. If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name.

the wub "?!" 18:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Tasks

Calling all CSS and template gurus: Help:Diff and {{wiki diff}} need to be updated to match the new MediaWiki diff styles.
Why not wander through the lower reaches of Wikipedia:Help Project/page statistics and see if there are pages that can be cleaned up or merged.

Interested in helping with the BP Intro?

Hi, I noticed you took part in an earlier discussion of the BP Intro. We're addressing the addition of a paragraph on the controversies at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Feel free to drop by. petrarchan47^T c 05:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

template:HighBeam

Hi. Please see User talk:Br'er Rabbit#The Coral Island, where a user is insisting that this tempalte stays in that article, to the point of edit warring over it and calling my removal of it (i.e. replace with {{subscription required}}) harassment. I see the multiple links to HighBeam in refs as spam, with the WP:link doubly problematic as linking into WP:namespace from article namespace. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

fyi:

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 1#Template:HighBeam

Also, the technique used to build your user page is not Sonia's, it and many others, trace back to my work. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

Analysis: Uncovering scientific plagiarism

Op-ed: Representing knowledge – metadata, data and linked data

News and notes: RfC on joining lobby group; JSTOR accounts for Wikipedians and the article feedback tool

In the news: Public relations on Wikipedia: friend or foe?

Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations

WikiProject report: Summer sports series: Burning rubber with WikiProject Motorsport

Featured content: Heads up

Arbitration report: Three open cases, motion for the removal of Carnildo's administrative tools

Technology report: Initialisms abound: QA and HTML5

Ping

Say hi once in awhile! What have you been up to? Pine^✉ 05:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

Special report: Reforming the education programs: lessons from Cairo

News and notes: Russian Wikipedia blackout; WMF tools; Wikitravel proposal revisited

WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Football

Featured content: Keeps on chuggin'

Arbitration report: Three requests for arbitration

Technology report: Optimism over LastModified and MoodBar, but change in clock time causes downtime

Lag

The Toolserver is lagged by about 17 hours right now. It doesn't yet know about your edits to User:Ocaasi/CREDO. Perhaps you can use an older input list? You'll need to bump the key if you re-run the bot. And use "really start" to bypass the replag restriction. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I can use an older input list, but I'll have to split it between two runs. Any idea how I can tell when it would be safe to run the Ocaasi CREDO input, i.e. when Toolserver lag has caught up to those edits? Ocaasi^{t | c} 01:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The Toolserver currently thinks the most recent was from 2012-07-08 23:19:56 (UTC). The lag can be viewed at tools:~bryan/stats/replag/; more info about replag generally is here: tswiki:replag. The English Wikipedia is on s1. The graphs will provide more info, but I think lag is fairly flat-lined right now (not increasing or decreasing, just mostly keeping up). --MZMcBride (talk) 01:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania ping

Just saying hello. Smallbones (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi! How's WM going for you? I met with the guy who started CREWE today; we had a nice chat. I swear they're not out to destroy us! Ocaasi^{t | c} 02:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

GlaxoSmithKline

Hi, I am currently trying to develop the lead of the above article and am meeting a complete failure to engage with what I feel is a perfectly reasonable draft, and certainly a big improvement on the current lead which fails to cover multiple key aspects of the topic. Your input would be appreciated on the talk page. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

Special report: Chapters Association mired in controversy over new chair

News and notes: WMF enacts reforms at Wikimania; main page redesign; 4 millionth article milestone

WikiProject report: Summer sports series: French WikiProject Cycling

Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations

Wikimania: Young chapter shows experience beyond its years

Featured content: Taking flight

Technology report: Tech talks at Wikimania amid news of a mixed June

Arbitration report: Fæ faces site-ban, proposed decisions posted

Wikimania!

Hi! Maryana here - it was so great meeting you in D.C. this weekend! Hope we get to hang out again sometime soon. You're always welcome in the office anytime you're in SF :) Accedie^{talk to me} 17:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Your welcome (and dancing) were both superb! What a good time. I can't wait til we get another go. If I'm every in SF the office will be one of my first stops. Cheers! Ocaasi^{t | c} 19:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ocaasi. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 18:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sarah (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo 250

I don't think I have ever actually used my Credo 250 account (I perhaps took a look once when I got it, but even of that I am not sure), so I guess it won't hurt me to give it to someone else... - Andre Engels (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I too would like to surrender my account. I don't do a lot of digging for historical figures' birthdays, which seems like what it's best for, and I hardly ever used it. Thank you, though. (Oh, and HI OCAASI!!!! BUNNIES! :) HAHAHAHAHA) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Done the Credo survey. Thanks for you time setting this up. Bmcln1 (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone can have mine, too. I have used it on multiple occasions and not once did it return a viable result. The list provided in the survey doesn't look particularly inspiring either. I guess that it isn't really an academic source, it comprises mostly tertiary stuff and it definitely doesn't cover much that relates to the UK or India (& what is covered can be found elsewhere). I've been meaning to turn it in for the last couple of months, so please accept my apologies for needing a kick up the backside to actually do it! My thanks also for the efforts that you went through to come up with the arrangements, which I am sure is beneficial to some. I am really looking forward to the JSTOR stuff that is due soon because I already know that to be right up my street. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

In the past I requested an account to Credo, but I didn't get it or didn't received the login credentials. So, if I'm in the list of Credo accounts please remove me: I'm not more interested. Greetings --gian_d (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I think my Credo account is not valid any more but if it is, please give to another user, it is not very important for me. Thanks in advance Sargoth (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I too have never used my account and I'm sure I've asked in the past that it be given away to some more worthy user! Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 18:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I tried it a few times but could not find anything useful. Maybe someone else can use my account. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

As with those above, I used Credo for a while but anything I found there was surpassed in usefulness by other free online resources. I'm pretty sure I've asked for my account to be recycled previously, but if it hasn't been given away, please do so now. ThanksJackyd101 (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Preferring published books and other sources such as JSTOR, I've rarely used my Credo account. I'd like to relinquish it. Someone else may use it more than I. Finetooth (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone can have mine too. I mostly make articles about species and little to no info about those can be found using Credo. Someone else might have more use for it. Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

i think never got mine as i originally had no email set up. i set one up, sent a reply to whoever had told me i ha to have one... and never got my credo acc. so i either need one, lost it completely and want it back, or just have them give it to someone else. whatever is easier. i will use it if i get it. 24.110.49.230 (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Just like to add a note. I was on my phone and forgot to sign in when I typed that last message(from the IP)Libertarian=Truth? (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

As with those above, I never found Credo to be useful. My college provided a better resource for free, and I'm sure my current university has the same or similar. I thought I'd already given up my account, but I guess I was mistaken. Please give someone else my spot. Thanks, Lara 22:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please free up my account as well. There are useful links there for sure, but it isnt what I thought when I signed up and I really have little use for it and little time to use what I can. ☮Soap☮ 01:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your note on my Talk page. I have a Credo account but no longer use it, so please let another editor take my spot... Johnfos (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Q re Highbeam

Hi Ocaasi. First I want to thank you for your years of service to our community and a really BIG THANKS for your work getting accounts for our editors at HighBeam. Your post at VPP looks like your working with CREDO too, so thanks for that also. Referencing is really important to our project, IMO.

I'm working with one of our newer editors, Penwatchdog (talk · contribs), and recently helped him with his first DYK. He's now wanting to reference more articles, which I'd like to encourage him to do. I could refer him to WP:REX, but I thought maybe it would be better for him to have access to HighBeam. The thing is, he's only been here a couple months and only has a few hundred edits, so he doesn't qualify under the 1 year-old account and 1000 edits requirement. So I thought I'd ask you about it since there seems to be a few hundred accounts still available. Please let me know if I should have him apply for a HighBeam account or not. If not, I'll refer him to REX. Thanks in advance. 64.40.54.49 (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Hello. You have a new message at Penwatchdog's talk page. 64.40.54.126 (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

Paid editing: Does Wikipedia pay? The skeptic: Orange Mike

From the editor: Signpost developments

News and notes: Chapter head speaks about the aftermath of Russian Wikipedia shutdown

WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Olympics

Arbitration report: Fæ and Michaeldsuarez banned; Kwamikagami desysopped; Falun Gong closes with mandated external reviews and topic bans

Op-ed: The future of PR on Wikipedia

Featured content: When is an island not an island?

Technology report: Translating SVGs and making history bugs history

Credo account

Catching up from a break...

I have a credo account but did not find it useful. Their references are not useful in the areas in which I work.

I am willing to pass it along to someone else who may find it more useful. Let me know if I need to contact them and confirm that or something.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, in the next few weeks we'll be gathering up those accounts. You'll either be emailed or talk page messaged with instructions. Thanks for letting someone else use it! Ocaasi^{t | c} 02:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

TB

In case you haven't seen, I replied on one matter at my talk, and another at VPT. Johnuniq (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

GSK

Hello, Ocaasi. You have new messages at Rangoon11's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ocaasi^{t | c} 13:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

It was nice meeting you at Wikimania. Sometime, perhaps after a few weeks, I would like to get back in touch with you about alternative medicine education and to talk about COI in editing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... Thanks again for this article on paid editing at The Signpost. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think Orange Mike presented the 'concerened' POV quite well. More to come in that spirit in the next interview. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 13:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Adventure: Request for feedback on Community Fellowship proposal

Hi! I'm contacting you because you have participated or discussed The Wikipedia Adventure learning tutorial/game idea. I think you should know about a current Community Fellowship proposal to create the game with some Wikimedia Foundation support. Your feedback on the proposal would be very much appreciated. I should note that the feedback is for the proposal, not the proposer, and even if the Fellowship goes forward it might be undertaken by presently not-mentioned editors. Thanks again for your consideration.

Proposal: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships/Project_Ideas/The_Wikipedia_Adventure

Cheers, User:Ocaasi 16:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

TWA

I haven't had a chance to look over everything, but I just noticed The Wikipedia Adventure. It seems like a great project. Is there anything I can do to help? Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Great that you should ask! You can leave feedback at the current Community Fellowship proposal to create the game this fall with some Foundation support.

Proposal: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships/Project_Ideas/The_Wikipedia_Adventure

You might also take a look at the script linked at WP:TWA and make some suggestions about it's construction, writing, flow, content, etc.

Last, if you know anyone who knows both mediawiki and javascript, you could ask them if they would be interested in making the first ever Wikipedia learning game that could be used by thousands or even tens of thousands of new editors. Glad you asked! And nice to meet you, I don't think we had before. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 16:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

First, that might have been the friendliest response I've ever gotten on a talk page. It's nice to meet you too, you're a good person. I should know plenty of people with the javascript knowledge, but not many who also have mediawiki knowledge. As a question, before I dive into all of the TWA material. Do you know if the Teahouse is utilized in the game anywhere? My two thoughts are A) it could be useful in the game, or B)We should exclude it specifically to compare results. In any case, I could totally see an activity that requires making a guest page on the Teahouse. I look forward to taking part in this. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I spend enough time here to want it to be a friendly place. The teahouse doesn't presently feature into the game. Given that teahouse is a pilot and so would TWA be, it probably makes sense to separate them both for practical and methodological reasons. That said, TWA could easily incorporate a brief module on how to sign up/ask questions at the teahouse, and teahouse could use the game to help new editors get up to speed. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on it; cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The Game + Wikimania

Hi Ocaasi, long time since talking to you! Just thought I'd write to let you know of my endorsement for your project over at Meta, I really think it is a great idea. Secondly, I am sad to hear that you were at Wikimania 2012 and we didn't manage to figure that out beforehand, or casually run into each other. I was in D.C., although I participated primarily in sessions and few activities as I commuted in and out each day. I fondly remember our WP:STiki time together and it would have been great to meet you. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office ^connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Email sent

Great, I'll get you the code as soon as I sort out which one was supposed to be yours! Hopefully by Monday. Ocaasi^{t | c} 23:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Enjoy it! Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Re:Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

I never got an e-mail. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 00:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, take your time. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 01:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't get an email either. No need to reply, I understand it might take a few days. Just letting you know. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about this. I have a hunch/worry that no one got the emails due to some failure on my end. I'm exploring this and will get it to you as soon as I can. Ocaasi^{t | c} 14:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Got the mail and activated the account. Many thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

COI+ certification proposal

I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.

WP:COI certification

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I also received the above notice which was apparently done at your request. I do not appreciate being sent automated messages without having asked for them myself, so I have opted out of the bot's services. If you have any information in the future that you think it is necessary to post on my talk page, please do so manually! __meco (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I only contacted you because you are a member of WikiProject Cooperation and I thought you would be intereseted in the proposal. I will exclude you from any future mass messages. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

Recent research: Conflict dynamics, collaboration and emotions; digitization vs. copyright; WikiProject field notes; quality of medical articles; role of readers; Best Wiki Paper Award

News and notes: Wikimedians and London 2012; WMF budget – staffing, engineering, editor retention effort, and the global South; Telegraph's cheap shot at WP

WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Horse Racing

Featured content: One of a kind

Technology report: Talking performance with CT Woo and Green Semantic MediaWiki with Nischay Nahata

Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases

Highbeam links analysis

We talked at VPT, and I guess you still want the analysis, so please see my questions at User talk:Johnuniq#Highbeam notes (I'm hoping for a response there). Johnuniq (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

West.andrew.g Talkback

Hello, Ocaasi. You have new messages at West.andrew.g's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

15:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ping! West.andrew.g (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Help Project newsletter : Issue 3

The Help Project Newsletter
Issue III - August 2012

Project news summary

Final results and conclusions from the help pages survey were released.
The wub gave a presentation at Wikimania 2012 about help pages, and the slides are now on Commons.
A discussion is taking place about the purpose and future of the venerable Community portal.
New designs for tutorial pages have been proposed, comment from project members is welcome.

From the editor

Welcome to the (slightly delayed) third issue of the Help Project newsletter.

The past month has once again been a busy one for my fellowship. The full results and conclusions from the extensive user survey on help pages are now available, and make interesting reading. These do confirm a number of our suspicions about Wikipedia help, and suggest that the current plan for the remainder of the fellowship is a sound approach.

Also last month I was fortunate enough to attend Wikimania 2012 in Washington DC, where I gave a presentation about help pages and the aforementioned survey results. You can find the slides from this on Commons. Wikimania was also a great opportunity for many discussions with staff and community members, and these brought up some interesting ideas which I hope to follow up on.

One of the things much discussed was the planned tutorial pages. I've been working on a new design for them which can be seen at User:The wub/sandbox/1, please let me know what you think (especially if you spot any bugs!).

Any comments or suggestions for future issues are welcome at Wikipedia:Help Project/Newsletter. If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name.

the wub "?!" 13:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Five

Hi! Welcome to the fifth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

Guest activity increased in July. Questions are up from an average of 36 per week in June to 43 per week in July, and guest profile creation has also increased. This is likely a result of the automatic invite experiments we started near the end of month, which seeks to lessen the burden on hosts and other volunteers who manually invite editors. During the last week of July, questions doubled in the Teahouse! (But don't let that deter you from inviting editors to the Teahouse, please, there are still lots of new editors who haven't found Teahouse yet.)
More Teahouse hosts than ever. We had 12 new hosts sign up to participate at the Teahouse! We now have 35 hosts volunteering at the Teahouse. Feel free to stop by and see them all here.
Phase two update: Host sprint. In August, the Teahouse team plans to improve the host experience by developing a simpler new-host creation process, a better way of surfacing active hosts, and a host lounge renovation. Take a look at the plan and weigh in here.
New Teahouse guest barnstar is awarded to first recipient: Charlie Inks. Using the Teahouse barnstar designed by Heatherawalls, hosts hajatvrc and Ryan Vesey created the new Teahouse Guest Barnstar. The first recipient is Charlie Inks, for her boldness in asking questions at the Teahouse. Check out the award in action here.
Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania! The Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania this past month, where editor retention and interface design was heavily discussed. Sarah and Jonathan presented the Teahouse during the Wikimedia Fellowships panel. Slides can be viewed here. A lunch was also held at Wikimania for Teahouse hosts.

As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:DRN chat

It is 00:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC), and it's time for the talk about WP:DRN on ##wikipedia-en-DRN ^connect. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 00:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

Op-ed: The Athena Project: being bold

News and notes: FDC portal launched

Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases

Featured content: Casliber's words take root

Technology report: Wikidata nears first deployment but wikis go down in fibre cut calamity

WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Martial Arts

Credo

Hello Ocaasi, I noticed SlimVirgin's post on the Wikipedia:Credo accounts page, and would like to express an interest in obtaining an account should one be available. Thank you. — Ched : ? 08:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam links counted

I have put the final results at User talk:Johnuniq#Highbeam results. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much John! I'll get over there ASAP to get my hands on that sweet data. You're awesome! Ocaasi^{t | c} 18:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For your work to get content creators like myself access to many, many awesome resources, I award you this barnstar with my thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!! I'm glad they're working for you! Ocaasi^{t | c} 19:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Your bot is bats

[11] :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I messaged MZMcbride to figure out what went wrong with EdwardsBot. Awaiting a response. Sorry for the weird mix-up! Ocaasi^{t | c} 03:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

See my responses at User talk:EdwardsBot#Spurious and unwanted pages. In this specific case, see here, where in the diffs there is the following additional line:

#{{Check mark|15}}{{user2|Anna Frodesiak}} [[User:Anna_Frodesiak/Barnstars|22 DYKs]], [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Anna+Frodesiak&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia 20,000+ edits], started over [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/index.php?name=Anna+Frodesiak&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects&getall=1 1000 articles].-- [[User:Anna Frodesiak|Anna Frodesiak]] ([[User talk:Anna Frodesiak|talk]]) 09:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

which displays as:

YAnna Frodesiak (talk · contribs · count) 22 DYKs, 20,000+ edits, started over 1000 articles.-- Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

it's the presence of the link to 22 DYKs that has caused the delivery to User talk:Anna Frodesiak/Barnstars in addition to User talk:Anna Frodesiak. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that fantastically detailed response. Is there a way to fix it so that subpages aren't messaged? Ocaasi^{t | c} 13:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Information is at User:EdwardsBot/Instructions; I believe that you need to ensure that each recipient who has given a user subpage link has not also given a user main page link (or vice versa). BTW re your comment above "Awaiting a response" - I've just noticed that MZMcBride did reply to you; see User talk:EdwardsBot#Curious edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Reference desks

Hello. I've just reverted your announcements on all the reference desks. Please use the talk page for that kind of thing. The desks themselves are for questions. Also, we use one talk page for all the desks, which is much more efficient that posting on every desk. --Tango (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tango. Sorry if that broke protocol. I thought it would be beneficial enough for RD regulars to justifying doing something that would give them the best chance of seeing it. As you probably know, it's quite a challenge to notify editors of topics of interest, especially when there are time-sensitive opportunities for them. Anyway, see you around! Ocaasi^{t | c} 14:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam

Hello,

ive tried several times to log in, but i have a problem.

I dont get an activation code.

Please answer here. Thx, --Martin1978 (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Question for Highbeam etc.

I've been highly active across many projects, yet have not been on Wikipedia for a year, I've surpassed the 1,000 edit requirement dozens of times over, but those do not mean much. My concern is being able to assist in sourcing the unsourced articles and add more sources. I was wondering if I could qualify for access in light of my activity. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Ocaasi will say about this, but if you can't, you can always do a search on highbeam.com and use the previews to find sources. Then you could ask me or leave a note at WP:RX and someone can provide you with the source. Ryan Vesey 04:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

@ Ryan, Thanks for the suggestion... WP:RX is definitely an good option.

@ Chris, I have no problem with you getting an account. There is no recent activity criterion. As long as you have a history of contributions and a desire to use HighBeam to improve any Wikimedia project, the account is yours with the good faith assumption that you'll do great things with it. Sign up at the applications page at WP:HighBeam. Let me know if you have any other questions. Best, Ocaasi^{t | c} 11:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I put my name in. I've been wanting to improve Wikipedia's credibility, but as I lacked the resources. I'll be glad to put up a page of my Highbeam article additions, because I tend to be pretty dedicated to any goal I set. Chances are, with access to Highbeam, I'll probably be a top citing user and do many many cites and references. I ignored the previous rounds simply because I didn't meet requirements of 1 year, but I'm glad I asked! I'm dedicated to improving Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems like Questia and Credo offer additional sections, hope I don't seem off by opting for those as well. Questia as some unique sources under its arts categories and Credo seems to be great as well. I'll be able to source most articles with all 3, no matter the topic. Not to mention create loads of content. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

They definitely each offer a different slice of the research spectrum. As long as you think all would be useful to you and you plan to use them generously, go for it. There's no restriction on applying to more than one, except editors own discretion that they'll have enough to work on to utilize them. And if you find that one is not useful to you, please just contact me and we'll see about recycling it back into the available pool. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia/PR op-ed

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#PRs_and_Wikipedia_again - I have 800 words to cover the entire issue to perfection. I vaguely recall you and/or User:King4057 were working on templates, a how-to page etc. to make life a little easier for sincere PRs ... did I recall this correctly? If so, please add stuff there :-) WP:PSCOI, that sort of thing? - David Gerard (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

Op-ed: Small Wikipedias' burden

News and notes: Bangla-language survey suggests the challenges for small Wikipedias

Arbitration report: You really can request for arbitration

Featured content: On the road again

Technology report: "Phabricating" a serious alternative to Gerrit

WikiProject report: Dispute Resolution

Discussion report: Image placeholders, machine translations, Mediation Committee, de-adminship

Hello, Ocaasi. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I dont check it too often, so pin g me when you send it. Thanks.Lihaas (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

io:Wikipedia

Hello Ocaasi, thanks a lot for your message in Ido Wikipedia about More opportunities for you to access free research databases. --Chabi1 (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome Chabi1. I hope you can access one of the accounts and you find them useful. Cheers! Ocaasi^{t | c} 12:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For your awesome work with academic libraries. You deserve this for tireless efforts to get Wikipedians the resources they need. ceradon ^talk_contribs 20:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I am indeed on a quest to help build us a library far superior than what we've ever had access to before. It's going to be a lengthy journey, but we're heading out in the right direction. By the way, have you seen WP:TWL? It's the next generation of this project. Ambitious and complex and not yet off the ground... but it's building momentum. Thanks again! Ocaasi^{t | c} 23:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Seconded; you're doing a grand job! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much. It's fun! Ocaasi^{t | c} 18:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't thankyou enough for what you're doing, its invaluable. This is exactly what we should be doing to open up knowledge. The more agreements we can make and the more knowledge that is opened the greater the potential of wikipedia as a resource. If only we could now contact language schools to translate foreign wiki articles into english for practice!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kinds words, and I couldn't agree more. For your translation idea, I was thinking more of getting en.wiki articles translated into other languages, but why not both ways! Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Browse city categories on German wikipedia and compare with ours. In fact just compare categories on a lot of wikipedias on their"native" countries and it'll astound you how much needs transwikying. BTW, what happens after the 1 year subscription to highbeam runs out. will it be renewed? Because I'll sorely miss it, its been an extremely useful resource for me so far.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. After the 1 year account period, if HighBeam wants to keep this going, editors will have to reapply. I'm so glad it's been useful to you and am working on making it permanent. Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

vls:Wikipedia

Hello Ocaasi, More opportunities for you to access free research databases. This looks like a briljant idea. btw, did you know your username in Flemish means "second hand" ??? Lotje ツ (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lotje! I'm glad you like the idea. Hopefully it will grow and expand in the near future. I definitely had no idea about my name. Is that a good thing? "Second hand" in the US has a kind of negative connotation, like something is used or not worth keeping. Then again, it can also be a sign of a treasure that one person discovers in what another person has discarded. See you around! Ocaasi^{t | c} 12:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a typical word for describing a second hand car, but since you are not a car... it might be something one treasures. Lotje ツ (talk) 06:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

vi.wikipedia

Thank you so much for your message.--Cheers! (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

CestJuste

Dear Ocaasi, Just writing to let you know that the editor "CestJuste" on the Alice Schroeder Wikipedia page is me, the subject -- Alice Schroeder. Normally I would not resort to making edits on my own page, however I was deleting false, defamatory, libelous information about both myself and other people that was being added at an incredible clip (as you can see from the history) and I was simply at my wit's end about what to do. You will note I was not adding new content but rather deleting and reverting content. I have been dealing with a cyber-stalker for several months in several contexts, and unfortunately Wikipedia has become part of that story. It appears the page has been restored now, and I don't plan to make any further edits. Your vandalism team has been in touch with me and we are good. Thank you so much for the time and effort you put into making Wikipedia a better place for all of us. Best regards, Alice Schroeder 69.124.229.110 (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam Research Accounts Question

Hi Ocaasi

I got your details from the Highbeam Round 5 Applications Support page, so I'm hoping you can help. I posted a question to the Applications talkpage, but it's probably not on too many watchlists so I've copied it below:

The watchlist notification states that there are: "250 HighBeam Research 1-year accounts available."

The application page states: "Because they do not have a strict limit on the number of free accounts they are willing to give us (they've initially authorized 1000), there is unlikely to be a problem of too many editors trying to get too few accounts."

Can anybody confirm definitively whether 250 or 1000 accounts are on offer in this round of applications? I've not been too active over the past few years but aim to get back to some content creation again. However, I wouldn't want to deny an account to somebody more active if there are only 250 accounts available.

Any clarification you could give would be much appreciated. Thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Ocaasi, all makes perfect sense now. Cheers --Cactus.man ✍ 18:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

Op-ed: Wikimedians are rightfully wary

News and notes: Core content competition in full swing; Wikinews fork taken offline

In the news: American judges on citing Wikipedia

Featured content: Enough for a week – but I'm damned if I see how the helican.

Technology report: Lua onto test2wiki and news of a convention-al extension

WikiProject report: Land of Calm and Contrast: Korea

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your incredible work on the OTRS queue, helping to reduce the number of outstanding "quality" tickets. Thank you. Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Maggie! I got in to the backlog game late but hope I gave a little umph to that final push. Amazing to see it down under 30! Ocaasi^{t | c} 19:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

City U web page

Hi there,

Although the articles were in German, I translated them and they did not say what the other writer claimed that they did.

The university was not accused of fraud as the other writer claimed as it was a Swiss partner school that experienced a legal issue. Claiming the City U committed fraud is outright incorrect.

The writer also claimed that the Slovakian branch went bankrupt when it has remained in operation since it opened several years ago.

Although I would have to find the article/video link, the Slovak partner school was ranked number 1 in Slovakia and received a top 275 world wide business school ranking.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NFLthomas2012 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Credo Account

Thanks so much! I appreciate it so much and will use it well! Mugginsx (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks from me too. Best wishes Span (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You're both welcome. Enjoy your research!! Ocaasi^{t | c} 18:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Credo accounts

1) I have filled the form, though it is my Wikipedia email id. 2) Could you try to get free subscription from Free ebook.net? They have lots of useful books which can be used as references, but they allow only 5 free books per month.
I have signed up for another book site Questia! --Tito Dutta ✉ 17:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I will add Free ebook.net to the list of possible partners. What do you mean that it is your Wikipedia email id? I need an actual email address, although it can be a temporary or secondary account you set up only for this purpose. Please fill out the survey again with a proper email address. Great about Questia. Hopefully I'll have those out within a month ;) Ocaasi^{t | c} 18:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

By Wikipedia I mean the email which is added in my Wikipedia account. I think lots of more people also have email id added to account, so collecting the email id from there might be time saving. Is not it? With my good wishes --Tito Dutta ✉ 18:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as it's a real email address that you can check in the next two weeks, it will work fine. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 18:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Credo Question

Thanks for the notification that I've been approved for a Credo Reference account. I really appreciate it.

I clicked on the Take Survey link and entered by Wikipedia username and email address. After I clicked enter, I was taken to a page asking me to create a survey monkey account. At this point I went back and clicked on the same link from the notice on my talk page, and this time, the page said "Thank you for taking this survey". But then there was another "take this survey" link, which I clicked on, answered two questions about the presidential election and then was taken to blank white page. There was no confirmation that a Credo user account had been established.

In any case, I have not received any account information yet. Do you know how long it should take? I'm not confident that I have properly signed up, in light of the confusing survey process.

Many thanks — MrX 18:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Since Survey Monkey can not send Credo credentials automatically. most probably someone needs to manually do that (collecting the information from Survey Monkey form log and then send credentials). --Tito Dutta ✉ 18:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. Your information was submitted. Then surveymonkey just gave you an offer to take one of their surveys. You didn't need to do that, and it has nothing to do with your Credo account. Your account information will be emailed to you by Credo in the next two weeks. Cheers! Ocaasi^{t | c} 18:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same question as I wasn't sure I submitted the right info. It might be worth adding a note on the WP credo sub page that it might take a couple of weeks to hear back. I had thought it might be an automated response. All best wishes and thanks again.Span (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I have added a note at the top of WP:CREDO. Cheers! Ocaasi^{t | c} 19:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I just learned

That I did not get chosen for a Credo Reference account. Thanks for the consideration, I watched the request list grow longer and longer and thought, "I'd sure hate to be the one making this choice." I appreciate the time, energy and effort that you and others have put into this. The good news is that it is raining hard in my chunk of New Mexico. Worth more that the account. Sort of. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, hopefully we'll get more later down the road. Fortunately, I semi-automated the process. The criteria were defined at 1000 edits and 1 year history. I gave 37 non-English editors access in an effort to compensate for the prior lack of global promotion of the accounts. Then I just did reverse alphabetical order on what was left. I thought that was more fair than first come first served since different notifications went out on different days and it really would have been arbitrary which people happened to see them first. Unfortunately, C is fairly early in the alphabet, so you got the short end of the stick this time. Awesome about the rain; must be nice to have some humidity for once. See you around... Ocaasi^{t | c} 23:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for this favour. I try to use it to improve the projects. --sicaspi (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Let me know if you have any questions and enjoy your research. Ocaasi^{t | c} 23:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the Credo account :) --Mohamed Ouda (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Thank Credo too, I'm sure they'd love to hear your feedback. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 00:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for Credo account. Thanks to Credo as well. I read above that you gave the accounts starting from Z. So it was lucky me.;)--Vyom25 (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference results

I have finally finished counting the Credo links (I took a few days extra while wondering about some irritating discrepancies I noticed). See User talk:Johnuniq#Credo Reference results. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. Will check it out this afternoon. THANKS! Ocaasi^{t | c} 11:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld and Credo

I was sad to see that Dr. Blofeld, possibly the most deserving editor of Credo and probably the editor who would have put it to best use did not receive it. I am going to be talking to the University of Pennsylvania library about purchasing credo if I find it to be of value. If they do purchase it, or I decide that I don't need it. Can I give it directly to him rather than have it put back into the pool? I would like to give it to him anyways, but I feel I will have a number of uses for it. Ryan Vesey 04:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for you thoughtfulness here. I didn't subjectively decide who would receive accounts, so it was absolutely nothing personal about Dr. Blofeld nor anyone else who did not receive an account. If you want to switch your account with Dr. Blofeld you can just have him email me his username and email address and I will manually switch you two out before I submit the final list to Credo. Best, Ocaasi^{t | c} 11:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ocaasi. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 07:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Worm^TT(talk) 07:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I've replied via email. It's no problem, just email me the address you meant to type and I'll fix it manually. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 11:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

persian wikipedia

hi. the persian wikipedia is really stub. can you help us?

the persian wikipedia doesn't have any article and we need many robots. please answer your idea?Milad77 (talk) 07:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Milad! Unfortunately I have no idea what is involved in improving and expanding a small Wikipedia. I think that bots and also article translation are very good options. Maybe you could ask User:Tanvir who is doing a community fellowship on that general topic. Best of luck to you and your work, Ocaasi^{t | c} 11:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference

If there are 124 accounts available and I was 43rd on the list to sign up, care to inform me why exactly I didn't get one?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

How were recipients put in order? I was the 16th to sign up. No account. Anthony (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi gentleman. I am sorry for the seeming unfairness of the application process. I'll tell you exactly how I selected them: I semi-automated the process and made no subjective decisions about who was 'worthy' of an account. The criteria were defined at 1000 edits and 1 year history. I first gave 37 non-English editors access in an effort to compensate for the prior lack of global promotion of the accounts. Then I just did reverse alphabetical order on what was left.

I thought that was more fair than first come first served since different notifications went out on different days and it really would have been arbitrary which people happened to see them first. For example, the watchlist notice did not go out until about two weeks after I posted to places like Village Pump and Jimbo's talk page.

I have a list of the remaining 100 editors who still want an account and will a) ask Credo if they will expand their offering b) update you as soon as more accounts become available c) continually provide access to those 'non-approved' editors if existing Credo users decide to give back their accounts. In the future I will attempt to send out all sign up promotions on the same day and may consider using first come first served.

A last possibility is to ask one of the approved Credo users if they would be interested in giving you their account. For highly active users they might see it as more beneficial to Wikipedia.

I hope that the availability of sources like WP:HighBeam and WP:Questia will somewhat lessen the disappointment you are feeling. The effort to get access to research databases is far from over and I very much hope that more will become available to you and to all editors in the near future. Please let me know what you think. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 11:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, although I would have thought chosing the most active editors on the list to get access first might be more productive. I'm still waiting for access to JSTOR too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Choosing the most active editors would make some sense, I agree. However, tthat introduces about 5 times as much administrative work to actually determine who is active and what active even means. Edits within the last 6 months would be one option, but checking that on 200+ editors including several who are only active on non-English Wikipedias just doesn't scale very well. The sacrifice to our current set up is that it's just not realistic to carefully curate the approved editors list. That said, I hear amazing things about the work you do on Wikipedia. So, thank you, and again my apologies for the relative un-intelligence of my 'systematic' approach to managing this. Ocaasi^{t | c} 16:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries, but I must say the highbeam resource has been of very high value to me so far, especially for articles about films.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

@Ocaasi: My sympathy about all the work you must have done behind the scenes, and I can see the logic to using an automated process. However, I can also see that it would be desirable if, somehow, the very productive editors were picked out of the list first, then the automated process applied to the remainder. The trick would be to define very productive—a simple edit count is not really adequate as lots of extremely unhelpful editors have high edit counts. Anyway, if this issue arises in the future, it would be worth a briefish discussion somewhere about how accounts should be allocated (without making too much bureaucracy or burden), and outlining the procedure at the top of the application list. Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

John, I had the same idea about detailing the selection process and left just such a note on the WP:CREDO page. I will think more about identifying 'very productive' editors. On the one hand, I don't want to wade into that subjective territory. On the other hand, it makes little sense for our absolute most prolific editors to be without these resources. Ocaasi^{t | c} 11:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for this Credo Reference access, which I'm looking forward to being able to use and share. Thank you for letting me know on the Kurdish Wikipedia as well. Xwedê ji te razî be! --MikaelF (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)