Jump to content

User talk:Snow Rise/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please comment on Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 year of the reader and peace

[edit]
2016
peace bell

Thank you for support and good comments last year, about respect and integrity. 2016 had a good start, with a Bach cantata (a day late) and an opera reflecting that we should take nothing to seriuz, - Verdi's wisdom, shown on New Year's Day, also as a tribute to Viva-Verdi. (Click on "bell" for more.) Miss Yunshui (among others) and his harmonious editing. We can only try to follow the models of those who left. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jarret Myer

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jarret Myer. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

section headings in RFCs

[edit]

With regard to [1], I find it better to try to have particularly neutral headings once it's in RFC territory, because the format is supposed to be such that it has a specifically very neutral introduction, and the headings serve the same general purpose as the introductory statement (to organize the debate, not to nudge it in any direction). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, and I knew your edit was meant in good-faith. It's just that I don't think the title was in any way non-neutral. It didn't caste the previous positions, arguments, facts, content, sources, or parties in any particular light. I wanted to preserve the original wording mostly because I meant it to try to galvanize discussion towards a resolution each side could be reasonably happy with (I took pains to phrase the following statement in amiable terms aimed at compromise for the same reason). I still hope that's a possibility, although it looks unlikely given the situation we now have vis-a-vis Fut. Per. not caring what the ultimate consensus is. Snow let's rap 07:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

[edit]

Gog and Magog

[edit]

I collapsed some of your good-faith commentary at WP:DRN on Gog and Magog. You probably didn't know that one of the rules of DRN is: "Comment on content, not contributors." DRN is a content dispute resolution forum and does not discuss conduct, and does not discuss behavior by editors, only what the article should say. The advice for an administrator to keep an eye on the articles is good, but can be made at WP:AN. Also, when a moderator takes the case, although the moderator is usually not an administrator, they will keep an eye on the article, and if the article is being edited during the discussion, they will fail the case, in which case any edit-warring or disruptive editing becomes a conduct issue that can be taken to WP:ANI or WP:ANEW. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Robert--thanks for the head's up! In fact, I had forgotten that principle of DRN's process. I rather suspect, though, that the said process will not be very successful within those constraints, since the major issue there is one of behaviour, and not content. With regard to the content, a consensus decision was already observed soon after PiCo RfC'd the issue; he just didn't like the outcome and has employed a host of WP:disruptive behaviours to avoid it, including rebooting the discussion over and over, hoping for a new outcome. DRN seems to be the new stop in this process, but hopefully the last.
As one of the parties who responded to the RfC, my observation was that PiCo only initiated that process because the admin had protected the page in light of his edit war with Xinheart--I can only guess that he figured there was a chance others would agree with his idiosyncratic opinion. But he was completely unwilling to work with Xinheart on a middle ground solution, or to bend on his notions concerning sources in the area of biblical studies, which do not conform to our WP:V and WP:RS standards (which he seems to have an only partial understanding of). When it became clear that not a single one of the RfC respondents supported his views, he just ignored them, playing rhetorical/procedural games to try to overturn the consensus, and when that failed, just edited the article back to his liking as soon as the pagelock expired and the RfC respondents had moved on. I vaguely recall checking back in on the article and finding this was going on, but KrakatoaKatie was dealing with off-wiki issues by this time and could not be called upon to check the behaviour.
I don't mean to cast a negative shadow over the discussion; maybe DRN will have better luck than the last lot of us did in convincing him that he needs to drop the stick and work towards consensus, but I didn't want a second group of editors to waste their time trying, only to have him WP:IDONTHEARTHAT the situation and edit the article back as soon as he can, simply because no one with tools was around to get him to conform with consensus. I think the actual content issue is pretty straightforward here, but I honestly don't know how you are going to get at it without addressing his WP:OWN relationship with that particular article. In any event, good luck! Snow let's rap 21:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, and for agreeing with me as to how issues are discussed at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I invite you to become a participant in the case. Participation is voluntary, but since you have been involved in the issue in the past few months, your participation will be useful. If you are willing to be added to the list of parties, please either reply here or at my talk page. I can add you, and you can then make statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I just wouldn't have the time for that just now. I am stretched in a dozen different directions right now and those intermittent little chunks of time I find for WP right now are further divided by a dozen different areas themselves. Besides, my knowledge of the debate is six months old; I can only tell you of what I thought of the arguments as they were presented (same of the behavioural issues). But I tell you what, here's my recollection of events, and I will try to keep it as completely free of behavioural considerations as I can, so you cans submit any or all of it to the record, if you find use, without my need to become a party. As it happens I was just drafting a message for you concerning your summary of events. Actually, I wasn't sure whether to leave it at DRN or the talk page--neither seemed entirely ideal, so this is as good a place as any.
"Thanks for taking the case, Rob. I'll leave you to hopefully forge some middle ground with the two parties (I certainly think it exists and that it happens to happily overlap with Wikipedia policy. I just wanted to take a second to provide a correction on the your summary of events. An RfC was called, by PiCo, but the consensus outcome was not to exclude the claim in dispute. PiCo had argued that the sources were not valid, and provided a number of rationale not found to be in WP:RS or WP:V (or in our policies on "WP:NOTABILITY" which term he invoked quite a bit, but without much explanation as to what he meant and how he thought that policy applied to the sources here. Anyway, the general thrust of the RfC respondents, myself included, was that no good reason (consistent with our community standards) invalidated the source in dispute from qualifying as RS and thus that it was technically permissible to allow minimal reference to this notion; the consensus view, which Xinheart accepted, was that the statement also needed to be vastly reworked for clarity and tone, and to avoid synthesis. Several versions were bounced back and forth on the talk page, and after a few days a consensus version emerged that was implemented for a short time and then reverted by PiCo, as part of a large number of content overhauls which generally cull out just about all content added by any editor but PiCo himself that are ever made to the article. I include this last detail not as an attempt to subvert DRN's (sensible) approach of staying away from behaviour as a topic, but rather because these changes are an important part of the procedural history here, and to understanding what is going on with the content, or at least was, last I looked; I invite anyone to investigate the version history and tell me whether they see what I saw. But my familiarity with the matter is largely 6 months old. At some more recent point, Xinheart re-raised the issue (some time after the content was last removed by PiCo) and PiCo proposed WP:DRN as a solution."
To answer your question posed on DRN, I know of no good reason to set aside the consensus of the RfC, nor any good argument to not endorse the reasonable middle-ground solution, unless PiCo has a more explicit and policy-consistent reason for why the sources do not meet RS standards. I honestly had a hard time understanding the argument he was making because of the whole intermixing of lingo from several different policy areas in odd ways, but generally I felt his arguments against the sourcing always boiled down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, rather than something that had relevance to how we appraise sources. (Again, meaning this to illustrate my interpretation of the content issues and the weight I gave to the rationale behind the two initially extreme positions adopted by PiCo and Xinheart). Don't get me wrong, the content was not a good addition in its initial form, but I've yet to hear any RS-derived explanation as why the source is invalid. I don't think any of us were married to any one version of that statement so long as it the ultimate wording of the statement was properly attributed and the notion faithfully described and free of our interpretation, which is where Xinheart had to give some ground. PiCo was welcome to participate in that discussion as well, but was deadset on enforcing exactly his version of that section. I don't invoke WP:OWN unless the situation gets really severe, but PiCo really makes no bones about how he feels his custodianship of the article outweighs other considerations--not in the revision history for the article and not in his comments on the talk page. Again, best of luck! Snow let's rap 05:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned you

[edit]

at YNS's complaint against me here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Medeis_has_some_sort_of_vendetta_against_me_on_the_Reference_Desk:_Science_board.2C_and_keeps_harassing_me

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

[edit]

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

[edit]

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Teamwork Barnstar
Thank you very much for your contributions. Xinheart (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks Xinheart, I really appreciate that! I've always felt a propensity for teamwork is one of the more essential qualities in an editor, which makes that barnstar especially meaningful. :) I'm sorry I didn't have time to lend more of a hand in the DRN process, but I see that between Robert's attention to the previous record of discussion and your calm approach to the dispute, things worked out the only way they could have, provided no one was able to twist issue away from the content and consensus on the sources. I think you approached the matter in a very forthright and productive fashion; when it comes to disruption on Wikipedia, the best advice is not to fight fire with fire, but rather with firebreaks--that is, to head off mis-characterizations with the truth (as provided by diffs and other representations of the record), and faulty arguments with good ones. I think you did that quite ably in this instance, despite the attempt of another party to forum shop, allowing the mediator to see the situation for what it was--and I think that's quite admirable, especially in a newer contributor. I hope, having been registered for a time now, that you will stay on and continue to apply that dispassionate and reasoned approach to content! Snow let's rap 03:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the invitation to keep on Wiki... I don't have very much time left however, but I'll try to contribute to this beautiful project. Best wishes, Xinheart (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 6

[edit]
Newsletter • January 2016

Hello there! Happy to be writing this newsletter once more. This month:

What comes next

Some good news: the Wikimedia Foundation has renewed WikiProject X. This means we can continue focusing on making WikiProjects better.

During our first round of work, we created a prototype WikiProject based on two ideas: (1) WikiProjects should clearly present things for people to do, and (2) The content of WikiProjects should be automated as much as possible. We launched pilots, and for the most part it works. But this approach will not work for the long term. While it makes certain aspects of running a WikiProject easier, it makes the maintenance aspects harder.

We are working on a major overhaul that will address these issues. New features will include:

  • Creating WikiProjects by simply filling out a form, choosing which reports you want to generate for your project. This will work with existing bots in addition to the Reports Bot reports. (Of course, you can also have sections curated by humans.)
  • One-click button to join a WikiProject, with optional notifications.
  • Be able to define your WikiProject's scope within the WikiProject itself by listing relevant pages and categories, eliminating the need to tag every talk page with a banner. (You will still be allowed to do that, of course. It just won't be required.)

The end goal is a collaboration tool that can be used by WikiProjects but also by any edit-a-thon or group of people that want to coordinate on improving articles. Though implemented as an extension, the underlying content will be wikitext, meaning that you can continue to use categories, templates, and other features as you normally would.

This will take a lot of work, and we are just getting started. What would you like to see? I invite you to discuss on our talk page.


Until next time,

Harej (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Xenogears, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gestalt. 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) 14:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Jennifer Lawrence

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jennifer Lawrence. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

[edit]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Bernie Sanders

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bernie Sanders. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refdesk Purpose

[edit]

However it was started, the RefDesk is currently advertised as a service to readers.

On the main page of the encyclopedia there is a link to the Reference Desk with the description "Serving as virtual librarians, Wikipedia volunteers tackle your questions on a wide range of subjects.". If the Desk was intended exclusively as a service to editors, it would not even be listed on the Main Page.

When you click through to the ref desk you can see a slightly expanded version of that same description. The message is clear: the reference desk is being advertised as analogous to a Library reference desk where people can walk in off the street and ask for help finding answers to obscure questions.

Whether this is a good idea or not is certainly open to debate, but it's not as though answering questions from readers strays from the stated purpose of the RefDesks, or that it's a "dirty little secret" that non-editors use the desks. We tell them to. And we have been telling them to for as long as I can remember.

ApLundell (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ApLundell I think perhaps you've mistaken the purpose of my comments (and I'll link to the relevant discussion for anyone interested); I really have no objection to anyone seeking insight on the refdesks, and as my comments reflect, I think it's obvious that requests for personal purposes outnumber those which are meant to help augment articles by a significant ratio, and this doesn't stop our answering them, yours truly included. What I do find deeply problematic is that some contributors have taken the unique role on the desks as an indication of the notion (validated nowhere by the community) that they are somehow exempt from the usual rules of the project, WP:NOR and WP:NOTAFORUM especially. Whether we are answering a question for on- or off-wiki purposes or simple edification, our answers, as with any other forward-facing material on Wikipedia, must be sourced reliably and not predicated on personal perspectives, speculation, or synthesis. Those of the refdesk regulars who indulge in this kind hubristic indulgence are very few in number, but incredibly and problematically persistent. This is not Reddit, and even on the refdesks we are not here to discuss at speculative length how things might work according to our best guesses. We're meant to be relaying the understanding of topics as represented by reliable sources, whether this be via summary in an article or direct presentation of the reference at the refdesks. Each involves a different methodology for contextualizing that information, but Wikipedia is not the place to try to synthesize new knowledge or entertain ourselves with open-forum discussion. There are plenty of places to do that online for those who seek that kind of activity; WP:here we work on an encyclopedia. Snow let's rap 08:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I absolutely agree with all that.
I only disagree with the assertion that the RefDesks' purpose is to improve article-space, when it's stated purpose seems to be to provide a secondary service to readers, separate from the article-space. ApLundell (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure I entirely share that interpretation; librarians working at conventional RefDesks generally do not spend their time answering the broad questions of those who wish to use the library's resources; rather they help the visitor navigate those resources. More so than that, the RefDesks were definitely meant to assist in the construction of the encyclopedia by helping to drum up and contextualize sources (hence the name); the fact that some regulars have subtly misconstrued that purpose telephone-style, leading to a confusing forward-facing message doesn't really change the fact that the broader Wikipedia community never gave them a mandate to do any more. But those are all very minor differences of opinion, as far as I see it. As a practical matter, I am happy to answer any inquiry (which I know I can reference) and rarely care to look into whether that answer benefits content in articles-space (or any other area of the project), though I sometimes take the initiative in doing so myself, after a question reveals an article that could use some augmentation. The most important thing to me is simply that answers be predicated on reliable sources, employ no original research or speculation, and just generally are neutral and do not to any significant extent involve our own ideas. Snow let's rap 08:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Preface : I don't know why I'm arguing this. I'm just intrigued by the received knowledge that the reference desk is for finding sources that can later be placed in articles. Having researched it, I felt the need to share.)
I've heard people say that the refdesk is intended for the upkeep of the article space, but I'm not sure I've ever seen evidence that that isn't the game of telephone. So I've researched it a bit.
I can't find any discussion leading to the creation of the desks. That's either lost in the spotty archives of that old system, or was decided on IRC and not on wiki.
The early refdesk has since been renamed to the misc desk. Archives go back to October 2001, which seems to be a few months after the desk's creation. [2] Interestingly at this time, the ref desk was already described as a service to readers, but the clear intent was that the questions would prompt the creation of new articles. (After all, who would ask a question if there was already an article! Ha ha. Simpler times!) This is the closest historical events I can find to the story that the RefDesk was created to find references to put in articles. It's actually more to find topics for articles! Interestingly, many of the articles created or updated by this process are unreferenced. [3][4] I guess the RefDeskers were answering off the top of their heads even then?
This way of creating articles caused some weird oddities, like how the copraphagia article [5] started off being entirely about dogs. Not because dogs are particularly copraphagic, but because the question-asker had asked specifically about dogs[6], and it was considered good form to answer a question by creating a new article. Although I shouldn't be too critical, a lot of the articles from that era were weirdly written. (At least that one is well referenced.)
What's interesting about this 2001 version of the ref desk is that there's almost no back and forth discussion. If you're lucky, one person would answer and then that's it. If the answer is incomplete or wrong, tough luck. Nobody touches the question once it's been answered once.
By early 2006 the Refdesk has transitioned to more or less what we know now. That's when the Main Page of the entire project started linking to the desks [7]("Serving as virtual librarians, Wikipedia volunteers tackle your questions on a wide range of subjects.") and the first version of the RefDesk guidelines was agreed upon. [8] That first version of the guidelines wouldn't even mention improving the article space! Though they were soon edited to point out that questions could indicate areas where "Wikipedia lacks coverage".
In summary, it seems like the RefDesks have always been an odd duck that is billed as a service to readers, and provides little service to article-space, except as a way of pointing out missing articles. (And by the time there was any serious volume of questions, Wikipedia was already well on its way to having the remarkable coverage it's so famous for.)
Having spent far too much time researching this, I'm not even sure what conclusions can be drawn from it. But I found it interesting regardless. ApLundell (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's very interesting as well, and I appreciate the effort you've gone through to identify the trends here. I think it's worth remembering that the Reference Desks go back nearly to the genesis of the project and that some of the lack of conformity of those operating in that space with basic community guidelines can be explained as a historical issue--rather than a conscious decision to avoid comporting to community standards. I would add only the caveat that, having evolved in the larger context of the project, not all discussions about how the desks should operate necessarily took place in that space; indeed, many central and landmark community decisions which should govern the way editors behave with regard to the issues at hand may not even explicitly reference the desks at all, despite their relevance to all community spaces--I think I'm probably preaching to the choir on that point, but it's worth saying outright all the same.
One thing that I think is hilighted by the links and points you raise here is that the RefDesk guidelines have just not been kept up very well with regard to the general Wikipedia procedure and community consensus that evolved around them. As our process and values became more and more clear and precise, it sufficed for most RefDeks regulars to know that the desks had to obey community standards; they avoided behaving like they were on an open forum and kept the process of supplying and contextualizing sources free of original research and speculation. They didn't see the need to mark these responsibilities in the desk guidelines because they knew it could lead to a lot of micromanagement and extra work, and they trusted they could walk that line in a way with comported with both the needs of the desks and Wikipedia's content/procedural standards.
Unfortunately, in the absence of explicit guidelines, a handful of regulars (perhaps as a consequence of not really understanding the broader community standards and process; it may not be coincidence that some of these regulars do not contribute to the project outside the desks at all) have shown an utter lack of restraint and deep confusion about what separates the reference desks from any random open forum in which they can indulge in boundless discussion for it's own sake, often further complicated be delusions that they are capable of answering just simply any question with some degree of expertise, leading to answers that are not just original research, but often guesswork which is just demonstrably incorrect and misleading. Certainly I wish we could all be mature about this issue, and answer only questions which we know we can source without synthesis, but the persistent inability of some contributors to self-regulate in this regard makes it clear that we are years past the point where firmer guidelines (and maybe even broader community oversight) are a necessity. Snow let's rap 23:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Carly Fiorina

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carly Fiorina. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Russell Wilson

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russell Wilson. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Paul Frampton

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Frampton. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

[edit]
We can only try :) Simon, occasionally Irondome (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC) 01:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! Certainly, I think it's awfully good of you to step in and attempt such a resolution, and take the matter off the larger community's hands, at least in the short-term--and at least possibly save a useful contributor. With editor retention being what it has been in recent years, we need to make every effort to keep even the quasi-problematic parties on-board. Best of luck to you! Snow let's rap 01:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 7

[edit]
Newsletter • February 2016

This month:

One database for Wikipedia requests

Development of the extension for setting up WikiProjects, as described in the last issue of this newsletter, is currently underway. No terribly exciting news on this front.

In the meantime, we are working on a prototype for a new service we hope to announce soon. The problem: there are requests scattered all across Wikipedia, including requests for new articles and requests for improvements to existing articles. We Wikipedians are very good at coming up with lists of things to do. But once we write these lists, where do they end up? How can we make them useful for all editors—even those who do not browse the missing articles lists, or the particular WikiProjects that have lists?

Introducing Wikipedia Requests, a new tool to centralize the various lists of requests around Wikipedia. Requests will be tagged by category and WikiProject, making it easier to find requests based on what your interests are. Accompanying this service will be a bot that will let you generate reports from this database on any wiki page, including WikiProjects. This means that once a request is filed centrally, it can syndicated all throughout Wikipedia, and once it is fulfilled, it will be marked as "complete" throughout Wikipedia. The idea for this service came about when I saw that it was easy to put together to-do lists based on database queries, but it was harder to do this for human-generated requests when those requests are scattered throughout the wiki, siloed throughout several pages. This should especially be useful for WikiProjects that have overlapping interests.

The newsletter this month is fairly brief; not a lot of news, just checking in to say that we are hard at work and hope to have more for you soon.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Lavdrim Muhaxheri

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lavdrim Muhaxheri. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Psychology of eating meat

[edit]

Hi Snow, thanks for your input. I really had no idea this draft was going to be so strongly opposed; I was expecting reactions like those of Maproom [9] and Klbrain [10]. As for POV, I thought I just took the first few pages of Google Scholar results (including many articles funded by the meat industry) and summarized them and their sources, although of course creating a balanced article is a big job and much easier in collaboration.

To that end, I'd be very grateful for any help you could offer: rewriting the lede, listing sources I should have included, and certainly pointing out anywhere I've synthesized, misinterpreted, or misrepresented sources. Your training in the field and understanding of whatever POV problems exist would make you perfect for the job. FourViolas (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly -- I'll carve out some time to be more specific with my perspectives, which I know may have seemed over-broad and not terribly useful. I'm sorry that I fell off the map back when we first discussing the research you wanted to use for the article six months back. Honestly I don't think the article is anywhere near as problematic as carnism, and I've been concentrating my commentary there for now because I thought the merge proposal is a necessary first step in disentangle this complex of articles and issues that have become conflated in discussion involving some of the same editors. I think removing that OR-laden article is more important and I didn't want to confuse the issue that I was !voted on; that is to say, I wanted it clear that I felt carnism needs to be merged for reasons relating solely to it's deficiencies, regardless of what happens with your article or any article concerning similar topics.
To that end, I had intended to wait until the merger discussion concluded before commenting on the draft discussion, but when I saw that people were conflating the two discussions anyway, I decided to comment in order to voice my opinion on which of the articles is more appropriate under our content, notability and verifiability policies. Nonetheless, I will probably wait to comment further until after we have some consensus one way or the other before commenting on the draft again, mainly because, if the merger goes forward, we may want to move some of the sourcing and content currently in Carnism (that does not concern Joy's book/term) into your article. But once the merger discssion has finished, whichever way it goes, I'll become more active at the draft discussion. Snow let's rap 15:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. This topic is more explosive than I expected, but I doubt the draft (and all my hard work) will actually be WP:TNT'd, so it can wait for the resolution of the current discussions. FourViolas (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It ended up being kept and accepted, and might actually end up at DYK. I've trimmed some material, including the entire Introduction section; if you still see any OR or POV problems, it would be great to hear where they are before pageviews spike, even though Carnism is still up in the air. Hope you're having a wonderful winter break! FourViolas (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snow, hope you're well. I wanted to mention that I copyedited the article, essentially just adding a bunch of "some studies suggest"s to hedge and satisfy WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV; however, I have no delusions that the sourcing concerns have magically disappeared, and I'd still be grateful for the perspective of someone who's been trained in how to interact with psychology literature. If you do find time and energy sometime to look through the sources and make the necessary corrections, I promise not to WP:RANDY at you. User:Snarfblaat seems to be another knowledgeable and interested editor who might be willing to help out. FourViolas (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, 4V! I have a few hundred pages of a new text to proof this weekend, but will try to at least address some of the issues I raised in brief a month ago, asap. On another note, you might be interested to know that Misty Copeland is at FAC! Snow let's rap 13:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FourViolas, just an FYI--I haven't forgotten your request, I'm just fairly well swamped and restricting my WP contributions to quick administrative-type matters until I have time for more substantive discussions of the sort involved here! I was also kind of hoping that the ArbCom case would go forward, because I had hoped that it might result in some restrictions (or at least warnings) for some of the more entrenched contributors working in that area (on both "sides"), but as that is not going to happen, we shall just have to do our best to hammer out a consensus amongst all parties. I hope to have some real time after next week, when my schedule temporarily becomes more reasonable, aside from some post-term grading! Please bear with me. :) Snow let's rap 01:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. FWIW I've been the only major contributor, from any "side", to that article, and a few editors with strong feelings in the area have left WP for different reasons (both quite sad) recently. I'm on spring break this week and may find time to sketch out psychology of vegetarianism, an interesting topic with health implications (eg disordered eating); I plan to limit myself much more strictly, to the several unambiguously respectable secondary reviews I've found (primarily [11], with bits of [12] and [13]), to avoid repeating the worst of my mistakes. FourViolas (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Vladimir Putin

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vladimir Putin. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Hey Snow, thanks for taking the time to mediate the recent conflict over in ANI regarding the slew of Trump-related articles. I wish it had gone a little differently, but the effort of trying to help folks refocus and discourage behavior that creates a hostile environment is really, really appreciated. I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as mediation goes, I don't think I can count this instance as my most resounding success, but I appreciate the sentiment all the same! In truth, I think any thanks for resolution belong to you. I generally find it counter-productive and tedious when parties complain about how "useless" ANI is (as happened in this case, as in many others), but I will say that nothing can replace a concerned admin taking an active role! The good news is that, noticeboard broadsides notwithstanding, the AfD/content discussions seem on track to adopt some form of the middle-ground solution. Hopefully if PG does re-engage post-block, he will be more mindful of where the line of blatant incivility lays. Much thanks, but for the administrative resolution and the kind comments here! Snow let's rap 08:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Peyton Manning

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peyton Manning. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

[edit]

Did you create your userpage all by yourself? How come some of you design a very unique userpage which is completely different from others? --Captain Spark (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Captain Spark. Yes, I created the user page mostly by myself, albeit in stages over the years. People have a variety of reasons for choosing to customize them (whereas others don't feel particularly compelled), but the general idea is to give others an idea as to communicate to others your general interests on the project. In my case, I also wanted to create an interface that collected all of my essential editorial tools together for quick access, to optimize my work flow on the project. Lastly, when I started editing here, I had only limited previous exposure to html, Wikimarkup, and other types of code used on the project; experimenting with the user page (in order to both share my interests with others and create a navigation/reference hub) gave me an opportunity to develop new technical and editorial skills that I can now use to benefit the project in other areas. At the same time I was developing those skills (a few years back) I was also spending a fair deal of time working on complex tables for articles and (to a lesser extent) tightening up templates. I use those skills infrequently of late, but I'm glad I have them as just one more trick in the bag to make myself as broadly useful here as possible.
Of course, these days I don't change the user page very much as I think I've gotten as well-balanced to my editorial needs as its likely to get, but if you have any questions about how to get started on working on your own, or want some help in just adding some simple elements to spruce it up and customize it, let me know, and I'll be happy to lend you a hand when I can find the time. Alternatively, you can always borrow bits and pieces of code from user, talk and project space and start experimenting! Snow let's rap 03:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Composers

[edit]

... because that discussion is already long: AE is something that has been tried against me, but I am free from sanctions now. It has not been tried against the many who disregard the ruling "don't make a specific infobox discussion a general discussion", and I don't know how that would help. - Boulez case: I added a minimal infobox, GiantSnowman added to it, then it was reverted, I went to the talk, trying to find agreement for something I called PDbox, because the word infobox is so hated: just when and where he was born and died, and a list of his works. Followed the always-the-same discussion, with opposers who never edited the article, one of them changing my thread name. That made me go over to "composers", to end the waste of time in these discussion, - you know how that went (thread name changed again) ;) - I wonder if some independent clerks or observers could point out in the (not many) discussions where a comment is general and thus unwanted. - I archived the whole infobox-related stuff when 2016 came and wish others could do the same. There are so many more important things to do. I am close to going to ARCA, have some new arbs interpret the ambiguous legacy of their predecessors who failed to even see what the problem was back then, - the reverts of infoboxes, especially in operas. {{infobox opera}} was introduced then, and met resistance. 19 infoboxes were reverted, but all of these articles except Joseph (opera) have an infobox now (see talk), all FAs on opera except Thespis (opera) have one, and many more. - In a nutshell: The problem that caused the case is solved, but I understand that some who fought for 10 years won't let go easily. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'd take this to ARCA at this juncture. For one, community consensus and basic policy are already clear on this matter: no cadre of editors is empowered to set specific mandates above and beyond normal community consensus to all articles within their specific field of interest. This is no less true for a group of editors collaborating through a WikiProject than it is for ad-hoc collaborations. This kind of approach is clearly irreconcilable with normal Wikipedia process and when editors insist on applying their projects' standards across a large number of articles as a matter of principle, without securing WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on each article, it's clearly WP:DISRUPTIVE, to the point where ARBCOM has had to be called in on the matter in the past.
So I don't see what you really get for requesting clarification on this matter when basic and explicit policy, ARBCOM, and the broader community all agree where the line is. It seems to me as if maybe you are trying to use this request for "clarification" to leverage attention and action against those who don't know or don't respect that this behaviour is inappropriate, and this doesn't seem a smart way to go about it. I think you're going to shoot yourself in the foot here and waste the time of a lot of contributors. My observation since the last election is that this is not the most pro-active committee that we've had. I'd be surprised if they didn't decline to revisit the case and that's just going to embolden those inclined to create their own Project-centered content-fiefdoms governed by their idiosyncratic rules.
Not for the first (or even the fifth time) I'm going to advise you that, while I often agree with you on the infobox issue, I think you are so gung-ho about the topic that you sometimes miss the forest for the trees. Pick your battles here. I mentioned AE at the Project space because I was pinged there and I wanted to remind those who are inclined to edit war on these topics that ArbCom has had to step in to stop disruptive behaviour there before, and the last thing they want is for that to happen again. AE may not realistically be the best option for resolving this conflicts though, because there are now new parties involved who were not members of the previous sanctions. I hope that the mere mention of the possibility will help forestall battleground mentality a little. But the truth is, these "infbox wars" were petty from the start and the fact that they are still going on, all of these years later, is suggestive that this is more about a personal conflict of wills at this point, not a matter of specific content, and if they flair up again, my preferred approach would be to take the matter to AN, for a broad community discussion with liberal use of topic bans for both sides. Snow let's rap 22:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I try to follow but must miss something. Never in my Wikipedia "career" have I tried to "to leverage attention and action against" any other user. That was possibly a mistake. I don't know about the socalled disruption in the time before I even knew what an infobox is. The last case, the only one I know, was requested because of too many reverts. Could I clarify that little? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that ARCA is for clarifying ongoing sanctions. It's not meant as a back door to get a new case opened or an extremely old one re-examined. Mostly it used by those operating under an existing sanction to gain insight into exactly what kinds of edits may violate their topic bans or other editorial positions. What you seem to want to do is to ask the committee, without a case in controversy, to make a series of broad decisions about the findings of an older committee that will classify the current behaviours you are opposed to as disruptive, so that you will have a more recent finding to point to when you have to deal with these behaviours. I find it highly unlikely that ABRCOM, especially the current committee, would accept such a request in that space. And i think it's even possible that some of them will take dim view of the request, given you were a party to one of the previous cases in this vein. My best advice to you is that this would not be in your best interests and that it would work against the aims that seem to be your motivation in considering such a filing. Snow let's rap 00:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please forget ARCA for a moment, - I understood your point, I think. Small steps: Do you understand
  1. ... that the case "Infoboxes" (which I filed under "pride and prejudice II"), was requested because of reverts of infoboxes?
  2. ... that I have no intention to have any user's behaviour "classified as disruptive" (which includes my own)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have time for a pleasant infobox discussion look at Peter Maxwell Davies. RIP. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

[edit]

WikiProject Translation Studies

[edit]

Hi Snow Rise. Thank you so much for joining WikiProject Translation Studies. Please feel free to make your proposals on the project's page. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fadesga, I was excited to stumble upon the new project, having missed the proposal process altogether! I'll keep an eye on the project pages and I do have some notions of some topics that could use articles (and articles that could use attention), but don't hesitate to drop me a line for any discussion that arises as you try to populate the project, keep it busy and expand its profile! Snow let's rap 01:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on User:Leo Bonilla/sandbox

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on User:Leo Bonilla/sandbox. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate your help

[edit]

Ok, here I go. I hope I don't waste your time with this. Let me explain you my points. User ParkH.Davis got nuts because he felt he was WP:BAIT (according to my perception) as you may see here. That WP:NPOVN was misused as a WP:FORUM at some point. I proposed a solution and nobody on WP cared about it. I don't want involvement with WP:CGTW anymore. I leave the discussion as they don't pay me for edit WP and I have a life! WP:LETITBE. THAT'S WHY I'M USING MY SANDBOX INSTEAD THE TALK PAGE. Ask me more details if you want or you are not clear about what I'm talking about. PS: I'm about to delete the RFC tag. Leo Bonilla (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd appreciate you help with this: Talk:Al Jazeera America#RfC: Reactions to "The Dark Side: Secrets of the Sports Dopers" documentary

Thanks. Leo Bonilla (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so some (I guess not-so-)quick thoughts. As random chance would have it, I actually got summoned via an RfC bot to Peyton Manning a few weeks back. I have only limited knowledge of American sport (and even less in terms of opinions), so I went in with a blank slate with regard to evaluating the sourcing and content in dispute. By general impression was that the sources were just too numerous and robust to be ignored. As I recall, some (a minority) felt that it would be a BLP violation to mention either scandal (one concerning an alleged sexual assault, another concerning alleged doping).
But aside from the fact that it is not a violation of BLP principles to add details that are heavily reported and sourceable, I felt like those editors who felt his name should be protected were going about it the wrong. It's clear that the U.S. sports press has covered these stories for years, and people must know about them. So, excising any mention of those allegations is less helpful to Manning than having well-attributed content on the matters which present the arguments of the accusers and Manning himself. Our readers could then view that content, follow up on the sources (if they are so inclined) and judge for themselves where they suspect the truth lays. Instead they presently go to that article, find no mention of these scandals and will rely instead solely on what sources they do know about, and the rumour mill. Hardly helpful. And that seems to have been the consensus of that RfC--that at least the sexual assault allegations, and probably also the doping allegations, should be covered.
Only no one has followed up and closed that discussion--probably because there were some other, even more contentious threads on the talk page that also got pulled into ANI. Your RfC is actually the fourth time I've randomly come across Peyton Manning-oriented disputes in various community spaces in just the last month. People really seem to have strong opinions on the man. Anyway, the RfC has been open for over three weeks at this point. It's probably not unreasonable to go WP:AN soon and ask an uninvolved admin to make a call on the consensus of the discussion.
The Al-Jazeera report itself is any interesting case. From what I've read on that article, the story has taken a lot of byzantine turns--to the point where I doubt many people are in a position to know the truth here and whether the news team are muckrakers pursuing a difficult story that others wish to deny or lazy sensationalist journalists who belong at a tabloid. What I do know is that the story is so convoluted, and has received so much coverage itself, that it is definitely a notable and verifiable event that has had an impact upon the implicated athletes and the news organization. It certainly should be covered in detail, and, in my opinion, the content currently in the article seems to present a neutral point of view that covers the accusations, the counter-accusations and the whole sordid, uncertain affair. That's probably the best either side (that is, those inclined to trust the athletes and those inclined to trust the journalists) can hope for in this situation.
Which bring me to perhaps the most salient point and the best advice I can give you here: I'm not sure what your objective is with regard to the RfC, but it needs to be reworded regardless. RfCs are required to have a clear question presented in them, preferably (though not exclusively) one which can be answered clearly in either the affirmative or the negative by those responding to the RfC notice. So, for example "Should we include claim X that Person Y was caught doing Z? If so, which of the sources currently in the article should be considered reliable sources for this claim?" So what are your concerns about the current content? I can probably help you format a better inquiry if I know what your position is on the story and what you'd like to see changed, if anything.
I hope some of this has been helpful to you. I'll be happy to help you format the RfC further if you give me a bit more context for the issue(s) you want to explore. However, please allow generously for slow responses on my part as I am immensely busy right now. Good luck!

@Snow Rise: I asked you and you answered. THANK YOU SO MUCH FIRST OF ALL. Lots of people just can't live to edit WP (like me) so I understand you. My objective is propose my version on my sandbox (a conclusive one) of the part of Manning's BLP in dispute and ask Wikiusers if they agree of disagree with the inclusion of those lines, but as you explained to me that question could not be useful. I think that ParkHDavis was acting fair asking for Manning's controversies to be included but I don't condone his WP:VANDALISM acts at all. I was upset for the total deletion of that BLP part with WP:BRRR justified by WP:DRNC but I explain my position about that at the beginning. And the worst thing is that part of a previous Talk Page discussion before the one mentioned had parts of other discussions which ended in a tough (and silly) WP:BATTLE and users blocked. I can show you the evidence if you want, but let's not be (too) distracted. I agree at the final that the lines in dispute were poor written and asked for rewording, nobody did it. So here I am, asking for 'some kind of legal assessment' if I can call it like that. I want to keep my clean reputation as editor as I only have a beginner mistake when I wanted to post a Lily Aldridge's Facebook pic in her profile in WP without noticing the copyright conflict because I'm one of few people outside the fashion world who thinks she's pretty (LOL). Am I a coward for trying to avoid perceived attacks of people who defends aggressively issues I can affect with my edits? Please tell me your thoughts.

Now, about the Al Jazeera America article. The part regarding the RFC tag, I, myself, created it with some lines transferred from an archived version of Manning's BLP (deleted, as you say, to protect his name) and I personally think they are better in an AJA page as they (AJA) are handling with it much more than Manning (among other things) much apart of his words on ESPN and press conferences but if there is a Ballghazi section on Tom Brady's BLP apart of Ballghazi page itself, I think is unfair not having a link to the AJ documentary in Manning's BLP. Which brings me to another point: my edits on AJA page have been pretty unnoticed but God forgives if someone put them directly on Manning's page and it had happened in other cases related to American sports, at least that's my perception. My point is, if I do something wrong with my edit I want editors to let me know, in a civil tone of course, and actually if I do something good I'd like to be congratulated once in a while, but I don't think I have earned that right yet. The RFC tag is there to know if my redaction of the Al Jazeera documentary is correct with WP:MOS and because to be sure the link to Manning's BLP won't cause any troubles. And on the other side, I want to add lines about the New York Daily News publication about Manning's incident with the trainer and the relation to the Title IX lawsuit because those are the reasons people even remember the incident. And I'm also concerned about I had to use several Deadspin citations and editors could be bothered because of the Bollea v. Gawker case, despite I think Deadspin can be sometimes a useful source, and believe me, I'm not the only one in WP who thinks that.

Thank for your time and your response. Leo Bonilla (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Rise: Could we continue this conversation in my talk page??? Leo Bonilla (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of living Medal of Honor recipients

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of living Medal of Honor recipients. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Marlon Brando

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Marlon Brando. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DRN help needed and volunteer roll call

[edit]

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Bob Ross

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bob Ross. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Erwin Mortier

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erwin Mortier. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SIDS discussion

[edit]

I appreciate your very reasonable comment in the RfC on the SIDS article. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the analogy with the Mad Cow Disease article, which I posted in response? In some senses, these are very similar topics: medical problems where very little is understood about what is going on. In both cases, I think this means that it is reasonable to include inconclusive research which is covered by high-quality secondary sources. I think per WP:MEDMOS we are not supposed to treat SIDS differently, just because we are worried parents will read the article and make the wrong decision in the "real world". Wpegden (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 8

[edit]
Newsletter • March / April 2016

This month:

Transclude article requests anywhere on Wikipedia

In the last issue of the WikiProject X Newsletter, I discussed the upcoming Wikipedia Requests system: a central database for outstanding work on Wikipedia. I am pleased to announce Wikipedia Requests is live! Its purpose is to supplement automatically generated lists, such as those from SuggestBot, Reports bot, or Wikidata. It is currently being demonstrated on WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health (which I work on as part of my NIOSH duties) and WikiProject Women scientists.

Adding a request is as simple as filling out a form. Just go to the Add form to add your request. Adding sources will help ensure that your request is fulfilled more quickly. And when a request is fulfilled, simply click "mark as complete" and it will be removed from all the lists it's on. All at the click of a button! (If anyone is concerned, all actions are logged.)

With this new service is a template to transclude these requests: {{Wikipedia Requests}}. It's simple to use: add the template to a page, specifying article=, category=, or wikiproject=, and the list will be transcluded. For example, for requests having to do with all living people, just do {{Wikipedia Requests|category=Living people}}. Use these lists on WikiProjects but also for edit-a-thons where you want a convenient list of things to do on hand. Give it a shot!

Help us build our list!

The value of Wikipedia Requests comes from being a centralized database. The long work to migrating individual lists into this combined list is slowly underway. As of writing, we have 883 open tasks logged in Wikipedia Requests. We need your help building this list.

If you know of a list of missing articles, or of outstanding tasks for existing articles, that you would like to migrate to this new system, head on over to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Requests#Transition project and help out. Doing this will help put your list in front of more eyes—more than just your own WikiProject.

An open database means new tools

WikiProject X maintains a database that associates article talk pages (and draft talk pages) with WikiProjects. This database powers many of the reports that Reports bot generates. However, until very recently, this database was not made available to others who might find its data useful. It's only common sense to open up the database and let others build tools with it.

And indeed: Citation Hunt, the game to add citations to Wikipedia, now lets you filter by WikiProject, using the data from our database.

Are you a tool developer interested in using this? Here are some details: the database resides on Tool Labs with the name s52475__wpx_p. The table that associates WikiProjects with articles and drafts is called projectindex. Pages are stored by talk page title but in the future this should change. Have fun!

On the horizon
  • The work on the CollaborationKit extension continues. The extension will initially focus on reducing template and Lua bloat on WikiProjects (especially our WPX UI demonstration projects), and will from there create custom interfaces for creating and maintaining WikiProjects.
  • The WikiCite meeting will be in Berlin in May. The goal of the meeting is to figure out how to build a bibliographic database for use on the Wikimedia projects. This fits in quite nicely with WikiProject X's work: we want to make it easier for people to find things to work on, and with a powerful, open bibliographic database, we can build recommendations for sources. This feature was requested by the Wikipedia Library back in September, and this meeting is a major next step. We look forward to seeing what comes out of this meeting.


Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Kanye West

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kanye West. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Laura Branigan

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Laura Branigan. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need help

[edit]

We need more neutral opinions here. I've followed instructions here and at Wikipedia:Feedback request service and to used the user lists there. I've sent a message for neutral input to everyone active recently and available for 10 per month or more on the lists in the Language and linguistics, Media, the arts, and architecture, Society-sports-culture, Unsorted and All-RFCs lists, none of whom have interacted with me before, that I can remember. Have done my best to act in good faith to try to get more neutral opinions. Please help! Thanx! SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Full Service (book)

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Full Service (book). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template change proposal

[edit]

I made a proposal for a change to the O.S. date templates. This is at Template talk:OldStyleDateDY. Subsequently, I came across this related edit to one of the templates, so I'm letting you know about the proposal. I saw that you got no response when you posted on that talk page prior to your edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mandruss--I really appreciate that you took the time to send me notice, not withstanding that the edit seems to put us on opposite sides of this issue, minor though it may be! I'll comment briefly. Snow let's rap 00:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Axl Rose

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Axl Rose. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Sia Furler

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sia Furler. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:The Matrix

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Matrix. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Dallon Weekes

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dallon Weekes. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hey, just noticed a month ago you reverted my removal of most of the external links on the Monty Oum article. Generally, only one official link is included (in this case, I kept the Twitter link). Other sites such as Find-a-Grave are generally never used in the external links section. I've re-removed the links; just wanted to give you a heads up about the consensus on this. Cheers, IagoQnsi (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IagoQnsi: Hmmm, that's peculiar; I don't recall reinstating that information and it was not a part of the main thrust of that edit, which I do recall making. I'm perplexed at how I managed to inadvertently restore that content in the process, but in reality I agree with minimizing the number of external links. Were Oum still alive, I might argue that the Twitter account would not necessarily be an ideal sole link, but given that the subject will no longer be producing new work, I think it does as well as anything. Sorry for the error, in any event! Snow let's rap 09:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Marriage

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Marriage. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slow snow rise joy

[edit]
Two years ago ...
"collaboration is
more than half the fun"
... you were recipient
no. 871 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia:Main Page history/2016 May 22: look for joyful organ music, pictured, - I guess we can archive more of the stuff that brought me to your talk a while ago, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, cool! Who nominated the article for DYK? Snow let's rap 20:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did, after Nikkimaria helped with the GA review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your anniversary is another reason for joy, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda. :) Hey, weren't we going to do some articles on a segment of the Beethoven catalog? Snow let's rap 09:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished a year of Bach cantatas to GA (one a week), with the Freudenfest. I have some plans, and not finished the Reger-year-celebrations (see my talk), but something on the side would be nice! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Gary Cooper

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gary Cooper. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Yuri Kochiyama

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Yuri Kochiyama. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Sia Furler

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sia Furler. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Imelda Marcos

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Imelda Marcos. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Emmy Noether

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Emmy Noether. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Malia Bouattia

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Malia Bouattia. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 9

[edit]
Newsletter • May / June 2016

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, featuring the first screenshot of our new CollaborationKit software!

Harej (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Duke Ellington

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Duke Ellington. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Elizabeth Warren

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elizabeth Warren. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snow_Rise/Archive_8&oldid=1136140464"