This is an archive of past discussions about User:TCO. 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.
FYI, I've put the paintined turtle back to a single paragraph. That's the standard formatting I use for TFAs, because it makes it easier to distinguish the blurb from the footer. I like the idea, but I'm not wed to it. With that said, I haven't seen a good reason to change that for the painted turtle blurb. Raul654 (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Raul, you are the boss. That said, it works fine as para-ed text, just like a science paper or a newspaper. A 200 word para is longish even for normal writing, and worse so in columns. Further Wiki has a bad habit of not structuring articles into single-idea paragraphs or arbitrarily clumping sentences together.
I'm pretty far from a professional prose writer. That said, my POV is standard writing advice from a colleg composition text lik Harbrace or Strunk and White. I would be interested what an English teacher or a professional writer/editor thinks. I think you and I are both "technical guys" happening to write and doing an OK job at it. And I totally appreciate the sheer amount of work you've done over the years at Wiki, but would caution perhaps it is best to consider how people would handle this in the real world. (And with all that, I still might be wrong...but I have this point.)TCO (reviews needed) 19:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
P.s. And I think it "looked fine" and worked fine. The way it was before. I showed the blurb to several people who are smart friends, but not Wiki editors. No one mentioned an issue with the para break. I suspect there is a conditioning to "what used to seeing on Wiki" that is not the same as "normal writing requires". Peace, though. I'm not wiki arguing for it to be changed back.TCO (reviews needed) 19:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
TCO, FWIW, I never actually endorsed or disapproved of the paragraph break in the blurb; I just hadn't noticed. No harm done, just want to set the record straight there. As for the break itself, I don't particularly care one way or another, though now that Raul has explained his reasoning, I think I'll side with him and his seven years of experience. More importantly, when you would like to make changes to the blurb, instead of continually reverting, the better thing to would be to discuss your changes beforehand at WT:TFAR or with me and Raul. I've been scheduling TFAs well in advance so that there would be plenty of time to resolve issues beforehand. The last thing we need is instability on the day it's featured (yes, I know it's just a paragraph break, but the principle is still important). Dabomb87 (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
TCO, would of kinda helped it you pointed it out before hand - so it could be discussed and saved later running in circles. Anyhow, peace man, as you say. Regards, SunCreator(talk)00:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I actually mentioned it in a thread at FAC-T. And then explained in edit summaries. I think I was following the R of the BRD, you taught me. Others didn't want to D. Anyhoo...it's not worth getting amped about. Looked good while it was there! :-) I think only Wiki insiders were bugged by it. Actually serves the reader better and is normal style.TCO (reviews needed) 00:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm with Raul. "I like the idea, but I'm not wed to it.", for now it's a no-thing, but an interesting idea. Regards, SunCreator(talk)00:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
About this comment you have posted in reply to my comment on Commons: It seems to me that you may not have enabled the script which would allow you to use the Wizard, since it is the script who changes the default value/behavior of the button from [[File:Example.jpg]] to that interface displayed in the screenshot. If you followed the instructions of the help page and it is not working as expected (e.g. the tooltip of the button should be "Add media wizard" instead of the default "Embedded file"), could you add a note to its talk page? Maybe there is some bug with the feature at the moment. Helder01:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I know this sounds pathetic, but could you add the script to my skin or whatever it is called? BTW, I tried that other Cat tool and it was very helpful when looking for metal fluorides as there are about 200 pictures in 50 subcategories. And I knew I could scan by eye for a very particular sort of image!TCO (reviews needed) 01:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
It is not necessary to edit any of the js/css pages of your skin, since the script is available as a gadget. I think you just need to go to the list of gadgets, select the option which has the following description:
⧼Gadget-mwEmbed⧽
and then save your preferences. If everything goes well, in the next page you open for edit will have the button will have the new functionality . Helder01:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not seeing them. I am not technically savvy. I just cut and pasted all the text and then threw it in my skin page, below one other thing that was there. And then I refreshed. I will try turning on and off computer. But right now, it's not progogating through. I am on a Dell laptop using Windows 7 and IE. Pretty standard load.TCO (reviews needed) 16:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
TCO, I don't know what's going on with you, but I am pretty disturbed that you would go to the talk page of a blocked user currently under Arbcom sanctions, make extensive comments there, accuse her of socking, file the closest thing to a groundless SPI I've seen in a good while, and then complain that Arbcom is being informed of the results of the check. All in all, you've created a great deal of drama and anguish for Mattisse, and have unfairly accused both her and other editors of socking. It's also pretty unfair of you to make snarky jokes about the archive leaks; I can quite assure you that nobody is happy about that situation, and your comments are just a little extra salt in the wounds of those whose names and personal information has been stolen and publicised, apparently for the lulz.
Your content work is very good, and I genuinely encourage you to continue with this. However, your interventions in various areas that are not directly related to content is proving to be less than helpful, and I'd suggest that you might want to rethink the way you are interacting in project space. Please give it some consideration. Risker (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Risker
I stated my suspicion and what it was based on very clearly. If it was groundless, then you should say so and don't pursue it. I told Mattisse what I was doing since I operate in the open. And I was ready to be proved wrong. And very happy she was innocent. Heck, maybe her reputation is undeserved and this proves it.
That 'boots account still makes me wonder, with a blank user page for 2 years and now putting the sock template on her own page. I'm not convinced that is not someone's sock.
Given I, Mattisse, and Wehwalt all took pause with the "take it to Arbcom", you might want to think how that looks.
I know I make a lot of sarcastic remarks all over the place. (And yes they are evil and wrong.) On something like this, I'm completely straight and honest and would look you in the eye to say so.
I'll be blunt, TCO: If I had seen that SPI before Hersfold and MuZemike did, I would have turned it down; they didn't do so because they are aware of the fact that Mattisse's socking is one of the key reasons that she wound up at Arbcom, and extensive review was carried out because of that. The editors you targeted edit like hundreds, possibly even thousands of other editors within the project. I think you need to drop the stick, and I also think you need to think a little bit harder about the impact your actions have on other editors. Whether they're good or bad editors, blocked or not, there is a human being behind every username. You barged into a situation where you had no dog in the race, and created distress for the editors you accused of socking; then you compounded it by making snide remarks about a situation that you are well aware has been very distressing for many users. This is disruptive behaviour and needs to stop. Risker (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
You stated your point, Risker. Please stop trying to have the last word. If I feel I'm a bully, I'm capable of being shamed. I don't feel that...and feel you are trying to push me around actually.
I brought it, knowing that it could be turned down, Risker. And in the open. And knowing that it might be wrong. (Or even might not get acted on. And I'm glad the CU was done to clear her.)
I joke around like crazy on this site, but this had nothing to do with that. And I will eventually pay the price for it. And it is its own thing. But connecting the two is crap. You better believe I had a scrunch factor before filing that case. I would look you in the eye and say this was exactly as stated in the CU application.
I still don't like the Smarty account. If that is someone connected to Mattise, even a "victim"...
I'm not getting the whole Arbcom hushhush thing either, but it's not as important and I guess old ways...
It's not that it's "hush-hush", it is that Arbcom needs to know if she's been socking again because it impacts on her sanctions; she edits in a very busy IP range so it is important to make sure the result is right, both for her (so she doesn't get sanctions extended for something she didn't do), and for the other users in the range (so they don't have a "sock" block hanging on their block log, even if corrected). Checkuser reports are *never* goint to give all of the information about an account. There is *no* connection between the accounts; if there was, it would have been very apparent. They're different editors working from completely different areas. This isn't "old ways", it's what has to be done in order for checkusers to operate within the privacy policy. Sorry if I sound grumpy about this situation; heck, I know I'm being grumpy about it. Yes, you are right: one of the reasons that people make non-public checkuser requests is so that they do not adversely affect the reputations of good editors. Being wrongfully blocked for socking (or any other reason for that matter) is one of the main ways that we lose editors; a goodly portion never return, and even those who return often come back with a much more cynical view to the project. Difficult as it sometimes is, I do try to remember the human costs of any sanctions I mete out (as a CU, an admin or an arbitrator), if for no other reason than because of the harm a poor decision can have on the project. I just worry how easily this situation could have turned out differently. Risker (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
1. I never asked for the technical details, Risker. And if it is a tough technical operation, then fine. But that is still not a "need to go to Arbcom". The volunteers (I guess Hersford and you) looked at the logged IPs regardless of if it was made an Arbcom matter or not. I think we will have to agree to disagree.
2. Do you know if either account I named is a sock (of someone other than Mattisse)? I'm not "stuck on it". I'm just asking point blank. And I'm not asking you to speculate.
3. Another reason for doing the private request is lower hurdles to run the test and less embarassment for the person asking (and CUs) if it comes up dry. Personally, I would MUCH rather have any CUs done on me, come from public submissisions.
TCO, I assumed that "need to go to arbcom" simply meant that the results would need to be forwarded to arbcom, or that one of the arbcom members would carry out the checkuser - using the same tools and providing the same feedback as a regular checkuser would. I almost commented a few days ago on this - it can be a bit irresponsible or foolhardy to rush into conversation with a user who has been blocked for a significant amount of time (and is still blocked) if you haven't investigated the circumstances behind that blocking. I was taken aback by your promise to help defend Mattisse from a "mean girl" clique. I hope you didn't know that two of the people Mattisse dislikes most are SandyGeorgia and I, because I'd certainly hate to be known as a "mean girl" without anyone having told me why. Karanacs (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
1. Karen...you know what I said behind your back...that you are a sweetheart. And I said Sandy makes the FA process work and deserves huge credit for it. She's not...a sweetie, but still worth ten of you or I or Raul or any of that...because of the performance delivered. I dug it when she busted our chops for the bomb reduction of uranium! Simple?
2. I Think you neeed to consider the "mean girls" in context and as a conditional. If Mattisse is misbehaving, then I don't support her. If she's being picked on, then I do and am not scared of the ultravets' old friends club. ;) And I pretty much think given all the past crimes (just like I'm an evil permabannee for slamming kids here) she needs to suck it up for a while...even endure some false suspicions. I don't see how you can read my remarks any other way. Including submitting a socking investigation on her (negative!)
3. The Arbcom thing is a side issue, but I still don't get the "yes I will do the check but take it to Arbcom". If it was a questionable request, then defer it, but the clerk endorsed and the CU looked at the IPs. the only thing that was done was some big flutter to take it to Arbcom. And both accused and accuser were taken aback by that. And we didn't bother on the last suspected sock that was brought forward falsely attributed to Mattisse (although interesting that it really was a sock of someone else).
Now that it's over, I want to agree with Risker, and say that generally I find this, and your approach to Wikipedia and your so-called humor that takes up lots of bandwidth on many pages where people have work to do, to be unhelpful. I was quite surprised that any CUs even accepted that SPI, which was based on nothing credible that I could see, and your entries on Mattisse's talk page were ... disturbing. I didn't speak up when I saw your SPI because I feared my participation would only increase drama, but there was no justification that I could see for that SPI. Perhaps you will consider now that three people have informed you that you might stay out of the Mattisse situation from here forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
As far as the SPI, you should have said not to run the check if you did not think it credible. There is a section for that. Data and logic. I am always open to that. The afterwards, would not have done it, is crap. Obviously a CU and a clerk did decide to run it. And it's always easy to say something in hindsight. If positive, would you be here saying the check not justified?
As far as your opinion of me or comments elsewhere, don't let it get to you.TCO (reviews needed)
thanks man. The reason is that the purpose of accessdate is to describe a website if a website is a source, which is a document that changes over time. For a paper reference the governing version is the physical publication which is fixed. The hyperlink is just for convenience. But there is no need for an accessdate (it's an irrelevant field). This is not some wierd TCO thing, but honest it makes sense and it's how FA requires it.TCO (reviews needed) 21:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
There, I believe that now the article has expanded beyond a stub. Basically, there is nothing more one can write about the team, unless one wishes to pointlessly include past team members. Cheers! (air)Wolf (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, what do you think would be better in place of Statue of Liberty? it should be something vertical which fits on the base and also look good... please let me know what do you think, thank you. ■ MMXX talk19:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Something not so iconic (it's too much). I think the boat and the earth are kind of subtle in a way and you can imagine being on another planet. And the other buildings on the shore are pretty quiet. Looks like an SF cover. The SOL just looks too prominent and obviously wrong. Give us credit that we can figure out the wrongness and just make it a bit more subtle. donno other than that...Maybe some obelisk that is somewhat known but not well known?TCO (reviews needed) 19:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure about typical rectangular obelisk... I'm looking for something similar with SOL, the picture should be from direct (slightly top) position and lightening and shadows should match with the whole thing too, also I think it's height is better to be higher than trees... I'll search statues categories in Commons to see if I could find something better, please let me know if you find something. ■ MMXX talk20:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'm interested. Happy to list this (as a newly promoted list) in September. Write a blurb like the other TFLs, and I'll tentatively schedule it for either early or late September.... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it's funny if it is notorious though. Feel like Oliver Twist asking for more gruel. Or when the engineer told a JO that he was radically altering ship design because as duty officer he had authorized ripping out the liquid soap containers in the head and putting in bar soap. ;) I mean I am capable of ripping way more tits than that. But rest easy. I wasn't going to try anuything new in the blurb. My larticle has enough of that and I appreciate you putting up with "lists" that can very widely in format. To me, the fun and intriguing thing was learning how to use tables better...and the FL group have done a good job of sort of sponsoring and encouraging that...and it can have impact in all sorts of articles, not just "lists".TCO (reviews needed) 15:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you wholesale. Lists are, these days, more than just a crappy table with a "This is a list of blah" intro. I think a lot of the community are unaware of that. Look forward to your blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, if you have the time and inclination, fuck away. There are serious questions that need to be asked about DYK's main page inclusion, quality control and all that. Anyway, as I said, bring me your blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, completed most of the references. I left the journals out cause I have no clue how to reference those. Hope that isn't too problematic. Aurous One (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I don't know if you realise, but you can transclude the review pages onto your userpage, so that people can edit them from there. Instead of copy-pasting the contents of the page (which, if you're dealing with someone picky, may lead to copyright problems anyway...), you can just add {{title of the page}}. So, for instance, for the tortoise FPC, replace the copy-paste with {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/gopher tortoise}}. J Milburn (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. I would rather encourage people to go over to the actual page. Maybe they poke around and participate. Also, I don't want the comments living in my userspace. I fill out the template, so not seeing the copyright issue. In the past, I just used links, like for Myrrha. But this is convenient to copy, paste.TCO (reviews needed) 10:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
If you did it the way I suggest, the comments would not be in your userspace- if someone clicked the edit link, they would edit the transcluded page, as it is at FPC, for instance. However, as it is now, if someone tries to vote, they will edit your userpage (as I just did). Your call- there's nothing wrong with what you're doing now, it just may be a little confusing for those not familiar with the processes. J Milburn (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm don't think that RFA question to Cavall is entirely appropriate. Asking for off-wiki work to demonstrate suitability as a Wikipedia sysop just doesn't seem right.--v/r - TP15:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
If he chooses not to answer it because of privacy that is fine. He did bring it up himself in the RFA discussion. but if he chooses not to answer, fine. It is relevant though. Looking at the pubs would tell us something. Not all 100 peer reviewed pubs are the same.TCO (reviews needed) 15:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, might even swing me towards the guy (or might show him some total fringer or fabricator). It is interesting that he likes Essjay, who fell down from touting himself as a real world academic, when he was not. In any case, I'll be fine if he refuses to answer.TCO (reviews needed) 15:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Toolbar
Hi
Did you mean that there was a delay when loading the page to read it or edit it?
I know there was a problem some months ago that led to me having to un-tick the tool-bar from my preferences and add the code into my Vector custom JavaScript page. It worked fine after that. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I have other toolbar issues (different) going on at same time. What I was talking about is the pages themselves (if not cached) take very long to load for articles like Israel or Painted turtle with 200 cite templates (dois and the rest don't help either). This has been directly tested. Even the cite gurus and advocates said testing showed the issue. Go search for the discussion somewhere if interested. ;-) TCO (reviews needed) 16:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I guess you are not as old as me then lol. (goes into old man mode) "I remember the days when a 30kb picture took 5 minutes to download, and an A4 black and white image took enough time for me to make a cup of tea and drink it before the page refreshed."
I really don't think a 3 second load is anything to worry about. I would say that 20 or higher would be though. I know from experience that many pages do not load well on (not-so-)smart-phones though, as well as other issues with editing (such as truncation).
Though I understand these sort of problems, I am not one to consider them. I make websites in 1024x768 or higher dpi, simply because 800x600 and lower are not that much used by the majority - and really only used by people with pc problems or internet issues. I realise this is not "pc", as it is akin to not having ramps for wheelchair users, but internet disability is generally easily overcome with infrastructure improvements and a bit of cash. Do not think I am trying to be controversial, nor that I ignore the plight of those less fortunate, it is just that there has to be a cut-off as the majority of English-speaking readers are going to have a system capable of 1280x1024 or higher. As a result I tend to follow general practice of "one below standard", ie after checking the stats we make the website one below the "lowest norm", usually resulting in 1024x768 being the base size (and put flexibility in to allow 800x600 and lower to still view it in some form or another).
As for modems, we used to use 56k as standard in the mid 1990s, then it was 120k, now it is not really considered apart from when using "live" video feeds. Even then most good "coders" will ask for the users preference or use some form of test to determine speed. Perhaps that is what is needed here. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The lag is on the Wiki side and is often 20-30 seconds for pages with 200 cite template references. Direct, with and without testing showed it was not on the user side or related to the pictures. Taking the cite templates out cut the times down to 5 seconds or so. This is totally uncontroversial, was hashed over, people like "gadget" (super cite template expert) all agreed. If you want more, go look at the trials.TCO (reviews needed) 17:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
You'll need to inline arkiv refs (you're probably doing that) and get rid of Pers. Comm. reference - those are normal in scientific articles, but are not allowed on wikipedia. Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your great question and support at my RfA. It's true that we have to wonder what will really happen to these candidates once they get all those fancy buttons. I shall do my best to live up to your and the community's expectations. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Belay my last. You did personalize it. Write some content...it will stop you from becoming too political (am thinking of some biggies here on site). TCO (reviews needed) 06:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Bye
Thanks for being with the article these days. You've added some really nice things; you've also led me yo make something more nice. Everything important seems to be done: only smaller checks and a copy-edit are on the way (I don't know when I'll do this, little time now, second half of August maybe) and I like the artcile more than before the previous FAC. Other than that, I hope you'll be on a great vacation. Really. Take a good time :)
I hope that you'll be on or just see the 3rd FAC, which (as I think now) should start around September 1. And when it passes (it's the time), I'll contact you. If you want then, we'll take over indium. So...I just hope to see you on FAC, even though you don't have to (it's a long vacation or anything). And once again, have a good time! Cheers--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
On 31 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Common box turtle, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the male common box turtle(pictured) has to lean back past the vertical to mate with the female? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it 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.
I wrote a book over at your TCO page and then deleted it. Well actually copied to text file. Might send it to you someday. Then I looked at the history of Ernest Hemingway and found this. Ripple effects you know.... Truthkeeper (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
There are several points in your report which need a little discussion.
The point that the B-Class articles are of low quality and only a combinations of unrelated subsections. This is not the case for a lot of the articles. If you include all the B-Class into the category for articles good enough for the encyclopaedia. This would make a better picture for wikipedia and this would be also true.--Stone (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello
Hi TCO, I read your analysis with interest and entusuasim, having been sparked by the disucssion on talk:FAC you iniciated earlier in the month. I certainly get the gis of you argument, I think most do, but I think your thesis needs work yet. Youve prob noticed that, ah, you've alienated a lot of people, and made some new dubious admirers. The problem is that your method is incomplete, with very very narrow sample ranges, a tendany to leap to conclude correlation with out excluding or evening mentioning other influencing factors. The statical community is not impressed (wags finger!). And then you went and named and categorised people on such a small sample, and deeply offended a bunch of volunteers who have spent hundreds or thousands of hours (I dont know who long a thousand hours is) giving to the project and getting fuck all in return but abuse. Frankly your powerpoint presentation has thrown oil on fire and worsened the situation many many time; withness the EH debacle, Mattisse dancning with glee on WR, the forthcoming spiteful signpost article. See where this is going? You suggested the semi-prot of all FAs, but this is the kind of thing that could bring down the OWN exemption on FAs. You have no idea of the big boring SHIT people have to go through to keep these articles from depreciation from, well, you know, sometimes well intentioned and some times not...uncoolness. Well fine, grand, and here we are. My suggestion is listen to people re the methods you used to jump to the conclusions, strenghten your method, widen the sample, remove the specious and leaps of fancy, come out with an overall more crediable argument and get the people behind you. As I say, I support your intention, very much in fact. Oh and sorry I cant spell, have stopped even trying at this stage. Ceoil (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
TCO TLDR reply
Thanks man. Yeah, the Mattisse chortle is a shame, even just tactically for her. Same but opposite vector with Sandy losing her cool with the USEP conspiracy theory. Lot of people in this place seem to assume the enemy of my enemy is my friend and my two enemies must be friends. It's really different than other chat forums that I've been on, where you might fight and curse and all, but there are not these deep feuds and cliques. I'm fine with Moni calling me on the carpet though. Seems more in the eye.
The EH thing came out of nowhere. But was going on before, no? That's not 100% on me, is it? I'm actually OK if you need to give me a punch for TK. I know you are the tough guy and are tight with her and I think she is a gentle soul as well. Thought it was interesting when she said I made her think about some things and she was willing to talk to me even as an evil IP and discuss Steinbeck and all.
Yeah, sure it is a small sample, time-wise. Although I did freaking survey of 290+ FAS, written by 155 writers over 9 months. It is what it is. The areas that are sketchier (read the methadology) are some aspects of sampling (the FA thing is really a mini survey) distributions (like the 10,000 GAs!) and the use of medians. I did play with it a bit and think it is not bad and will not change much per story if you had some bot or the like and could crunch the whole thing.
I have a pretty good intuition on the limits of the individual tags (as you do). I could have larded down the writing with a bunch of wimpy caveats in there about small samples (e.g. someone who wrote now FAs in those months is not even in there...duh)! Don't you think everyone gets that intuitively and understands such results for an individual have this issue? [Actually you are right, I'll add a footnote (or a headnote) and a comment in methadology on this issue of the individuals. I really do think the inherent limitations...which parts are stronger/weaker should be easy for someone who works with data to grok, but maybe not. OK.
But I figured people would want to know where they came out. It's human nature. And I had the data. I was surprised where you came out and thought you might be angry, but happy that you have the savvy to understand the limits of the analysis. The other thing is those charts with the individuals do show what a leader board would look like that was not WP:BFAN or a Wikicup that was page view weighted. And the study and any decisions should come from consideration of group results, not individuals. I guess, I could cut those pages. Or cut the column with names. Hmm. I do think giving names kind of gives flavor also, so you lose some insight if it is all abstract.
From law of large numbers, group tendancies, etc. the implications for the broad distribution...are unlikely to be that much different with extending to full calender year or even two years. I mean, you see the basic forms of behavior and the distribution and the like. I'll Bayesian bet you that for the group, challenger to star collector effectiveness does not change as a story with more data. I mean it is 155 data points with 2 factor analysis. That's like 153 degrees of freedom. No? And just comparing similar article types (e.g. turtle examples) one can see how the payoff is just higher for championing. You can't rack up 500 view stars fast enought to make it work.
I guess...yeah I'm sure there are all kinds of factors. I think I blathered about a little of them, did I not? [Actually, I should just step back and let you say what you mean here, so I don't crowd the space and make sure to get your thinking.] I dig multifactor analysis (well, not really, I'm not a math jock, but I like imagining all these things as concepts). I would say though that we need to build insight from the mist. Before our single output metric was NUMBER of FAs and GAs. Sure that is a metric. But a pretty flawed one. Gameable. At least I add another factor (number of views) that gives a lot more insight than just "an article" into what the readers care about. (and VAs, Louie's importance and Gorbatai's project rankings...all show similar implications for a purely subjective ranking of importance.) .
In terms of causative factors...hey...I totally buy some of the fundamental issues with the Wiki: crappy interface, that you don't get a byline, that others can screw up your prose and bog you down with gnomey-shit fights that make you not even want to work on an article and then where is the damned gnome stuck with nothing to fuck with, Facebook competition, bullyboy admins, fill in more. But I would just counter this and say...yeah...we KNOW those things exist. And sure I'm up for the cause for fixing some of them. But we also KNOW star collecting is a substantial driver of behavior in the current situation. All the outside literature on the Internet supports this. And all the cuts of looking at things I did. Do we really think that all those hurricane articles would be FA/GA and Andrew not if the rewards were page view weighted somehow? That the WikiCup with pageview weighted rules would not drive very substantial contribution vice templated GAs? So sure...the problem is hypercomplicated, but that does not mean we can't get some insights and consider some changes right now.
Donno about more analysis. I personally punched all those pages, wrote down all those numbers, etc. without server data and made like 40 pages of Excel. The only places with server data are the published Gorbatai analysis and the new Gorbatai analysis. I think there is some academic interest that was already heading down these same tracks so maybe you get more of that power of analysis (although I find some times being close to the data helps as well...not just massive data crunching on variables provided, but doing cases and the like).
I've had a little discussion about an (probably more than one) academic paper. It might be a lot of work though. And I really wrote it as more of a corporate strategy weeney document than something academic. It's more like a selection of several of the (sometimes quite good) little studies that people do here on the Wiki to understand this or that (e.g. can see the ones done on IP vandalism of TFAs). I may have a paid gig coming in soon and need to keep earning dineros to feed my cats, so can't really commit to more grunt work. Maybe it sparks some thoughts?
I'm in favor of the small ownership exemption for FA and expanding it. You have a good point that it might never fly. And I really did not study it much or even think about it anyhoo. I had not considered the gamesmanship issue of losing what we have by going for more! Hmm. My main thing is not the protection though. It would be nice, but given the hurdle, think concentrating on things that are more feasible makes sense. Or just take what you can get wherever you can get it. Wiki has a way of bogging things down with perfect is the enemy of better.
P.s. Thanks again for the straight remarks. Fair enough.
P.s.s. I do think FA is in danger of becoming too much of a clique and a closed shop and they should think about it. Not just mobilize the white blood cells.
P.s.s. I'm a lousy speller and writer. But you know grammarian is a very weak flame warrior.
Hello from another rubbish speller. For sure the EH thing was going on before, but do you not see the ammo you are handing them? Your pres was used as a direct hit against her. Look, your not the first to take this position, but you are one of the most charming, and you have the most traction. I'm both protective of my sepcies (although motherfucker according to you I'm just a 0.33% dabbler) and keen that it leads to contrstucive (or whatever) debate. Your about half ways there imo, but you have a few holes in your theory and they need to be fixed. Lets be honest you are a FAC insider yourself, and nobody doubts your intention, but rather than damage and offend us, wanna engage and work with us. Moni seems v willing to engage ya, once she puts down her smelling salts, and TK sure is a somebody I work with a lot am am close to, and MF you have already said you respect. I can point out one weakness in your analysis off the top of my head (or my heart or whatever), your dismissal of easy passes at FAC ignore the fact that the page might have been (ideally) done early on, and the seemingly easily won supports were hard fought at GA and PR. Thre is that, and there is more too, but am slow brained at the moment. My suggestion, and I realise its from somebody you might only know from such noticeboards as [1][2][3][4][5][6] and wikietiquette (oh the irony)[7][8][9], is work on the method, and your work will do some good rather than be just a raft and stick for the likes of Mattise and the non content power hoars. Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Re and she was willing to talk to me even as an evil IP and discuss Steinbeck and all. I took to heart your first wave of comments about broader topics on the FAC talk, its not a backing each other up things, its a friends think alike thats why they are friends thing. You can believe or not, but thats they way it is. I'm not given to pretense or duplicity, u can take me at face value. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
You are straight. Agreed, friends think alike. And the friends defend friends. I like that about Malleus even if we disagree on something.
That's cool that you thought the first discussion was worthwhile. Didn't realize that.
Let me take a look at the presentation and see about adding some caveats where individuals feel skewered. I don't want to baby it though because star collectors want to star collect. Or the FAC leader feels turfy.
On the content reviews, this is the kind of crit that is fine. That was a first pass attempt to try to do something. And it is not proving Euclid's theorems. It is analysis. We could try something else like having some magazine editor or the like read several reviews and see if content is not getting addressed well. I did try to look for previous reviews if referenced in the discussion and noted that. I have been a part of some reviews at FAC that were light on content discussion and the issue has been raised by others. It's not an insane thing to try to assess. We just have to figure out the right way to measure it and nail it. I do think a definitive statement (as with images or close paraphrasing) on content should be made ("I looked at content deeply in peer review") if that is what we are relying on. Obviously if the content is hashed out in the review itself than that covers it.
Rights
TCO, following Xeno's various moves I have restored your userrights. I am uncertain if the TCO (renamed) account should be blocked. I will consult with Xeno on that, I guess. Welcome back, but whoa!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I just moved the user page to consolidate also.
WTF is this whoa stuff?
I'm going to move the one essay as well. Didn't work for me, please move. (All my haters want stuff under main account. This is very Brer Rabbit briar patch. Like reverse psychology. ;))
Can you bring back the sandbox and associated pages?
And the alternate account was either from Karan bringing it back or a glitch of the universal login. I tried to keep my posts on the main (renamed retired) account the whole time. But the hayterz and conspiracy theorists can make hay if they want. I like going into battle with a few chinks (OK gaping holes) in the armor. Might make it a fair fight for the other guy(s). ;)
I undeleted the sandbox. Yes, the Wiki interface reminds me very much of SCRIPSIT, if you recall it. I will hunt down the other pages but it will be faster if you tell me where they were. And "Whoa" is a general-purpose exclamatory these days, or so the kids tell me.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Focus on unimportant content
I am a strong supporter of the thoughts in your slide deck. The importance of FA, first page promotion, edit counter ... is mainly that they function as incentives. These incentives should be designed to stimulate as valuable work as possible. An article that is seen by many is more valuable than an article that is seen by few. An article that is deemed very important by a project is most likely more valuable than an article that is deemed unimportant. That is the whole point of making those evalutations (of subjects, not the content). We should strive to design these systems so that star collecting creates as valuable content as possible. Star collection behaviour is not a problem. The problem is that we hand out flawed stars, or rather, that the star eligibility criteria are flawed. We should create an value creation counter that weighs in quality of article, number of page views, number of characters added (deletions are a bit tricky), vital article status etc. Only articles of broad interest should be promoted on the first page. If FA's are lacking, we should promote GA's instead. --Ettrig (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
GMTA. Yeah...this was something I was thinking about last few days--I guess it takes me a while to figure things out. The BFAN push, user candy, and TFA spot are exactly the same for "Ernest Hemingway" as for "Waddesdon Road railway station". With TFA, it even gives a negative (true) impression that we have a few (admittedly top-notch) people concentrating on obscure topics. And the argument that we need to show the public that we have obscure things covered, not just big topics, is laughable. I think everyone knows we are large and knows when the Google almost anything, we come up. I think Kevin Myer's (a real scholar btw) GA on "Declaration of Independence is more noteworthy and relevant to who we should care about (the readers!) than many starred topics.TCO (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Your study and the Signpost
Hello, TCO; I am a managing editor of the Signpost and have been watching the fallout from your study with keen interest. I am very happy that you have expressed interest in the piece being covered in the Signpost, and would like to extend an invitation for you to make your case in our pages. What I have in mind is a statement by you summarising the study's main point, and anticipating/defending against criticisms, followed by a critical response by one or more of the FAC/GA people, and perhaps a final impartial piece exploring what questions the affair raises for the quality content community and the project at large. Skomorokh16:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
OK. It's a little scarey, but makes sense. And is fair. Let me know when you need something. I'm not a great writer so appreciate any assistance from editors. Today is turkey day, so won't work on it.RetiredUser12459780 (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Of course. I'm very glad you're willing to take this on (although of course if you don't feel comfortable, you could always get help from a sympathetic colleague). Do you think you could knock together 500 words or so by, say, Saturday? Skomorokh16:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll get started on it tonight. I had to rake the leaves yesterday and today at Mom's house. The other team can just write their criticism in parallel (the pdf is there). I heard the most important aspect of a journalist was meeting deadlines, so so much for landing a Signpost gig.TCO (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
TK comments
Jumping into this but will in fits and starts as I read and review your power-point. First, I think there's a real serious organization problem - it's just too hard to follow logically and so certain bits and pieces jump out at the reader. Every reader comes away with what they want if they like it and with what they hate if they dislike it. As Ceoil says you have traction and it's too late to stuff this genie back in the bottle, so you need to spend some time with your methodoloy. I've been trying to review again and had to stop at the section about reviews - I can give tons of diffs for peer reviews, good article reviews, etc. It's true that some articles don't get a lot of content review at FAC, but that's because the writers were responsible and took the time to have reviews prior to FAC. You gotta fix that section, and do some research. Look at what the folks at Peer Review are doing, a very under-appreciated small group, and then try to correlate. The flipside is nominators who don't listen to reviewers; have a look whether nominators are listening to what reviewers are telling at GA on PR or simply rushing to FAC. Also, FAC isn't a step above GA. All too often I've seen a page pass GA and nominated at FAC within the hour or the next day. It should not happen that way! GA is a stepping stone - the bank of the river is still far away. A lot has to be done first. If an underprepared page shows up at FAC then naturally the first thing that will jump out at reviewers are seemingly trivial: MoS, refs, prose, etc. But the assumption is that stuff has to be right because this is a publishing endeavor of sorts. Then the content is dug into. I won't review pages that have obvious errors - too much of a timesink. Also you gotta gotta take out the personalities. Do not make labels, do not name names. Ever. This is the internet dude and bad shit happens. So stop that. I'll be back with more - am reviewing your piece. And listen to what Moni3 has to say would be my advice. Oh one last thing - if we follow the advice below to give partial stars or whatever, then people will stop writing. Period. And you will have brought down the entire FAC system. I think FAC like everything else everywhere else is flawed - I don't believe in perfection - but I don't think the problem lies with the process. And as processes go, it's pretty good in my view. The problem is elsewhere. If you apply a more rigorous methodology to your research you might discover the problem. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The other thing to look at is why reviewers don't oppose as much as they should. This is a perennial problem for Sandy et. al. They have to follow community consensus, and I think it's a process that works fairly well - most of the time. The problem lies, to some extent, with the reviewers of which there is a huge shortage. Have a look at this review. Most of my review is on the talk-page. I found out much later this was a commissioned piece but it was not ready for promotion so I opposed. Look at the language and tone from the nominator (who went to write a nasty essay about me which has since been deleted) and ask yourself whether reviewers need to spend volunteer time putting up with this kind of shit. And then extend it out and try to gather data. All I can tell you is that each time I've opposed on a review it's turned into a Bad Experience. I rarely review these days and I only review pages that I know I can support. But if nominators have friends tagging along behind who put in multiple drive-by supports and no one else will engage it causes a problem and often delegates have no choice but to promote. Anyway, I'll leave you alone now. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm threading my comments here as I read. I have a question about the dates & the samples. Like seriously how do I get to be a battleship & Ceoil a dabbler? Or a BrianBoulton? Like seriously, have you looked at their pages? You need a much larger data set. And it would be interesting to see what happens if the data sample is expanded. More later. Still reading ..... making notes as I go along. I think if you stay with this data set that every table has to indicate the distribution clearly because at the moment I'm scrolling all over the place. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I've put some stuff here. It's not as well pulled together as I'd like but this battleship is tired and has had enough of this place for a while. Sorry if the points seem harsh, but for a full analysis I think you should take some of them into consideration. Also just be aware that the way this report was used against me on EH stopped the work there in its tracks. I know that wasn't the intention but there are ripple effects that can be potentially multiplied by a lot. Personally I'm starting to think this is not a very healthy place to spend time. Thanks, Truthkeeper (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I need to concentrate, TK. I have to write some Signpost thingie (reporters getting people to do work...hmm...but then maybe I could become a reporter there...hmmm. Let's talk more later. I'll give everyone lots of time and probably bore you all with rebutalls. Quick couple shots though.
Sandy says she doesn't promote off of a vote, looks at the actual content...then complains about vapid supports influencing decisions. Which is it? Two claims are contrary. Personally, I think she should just make a call like a journal editor would (substance of the reviews) and not whine about the latter issue. A quick note on why things get dinged should be done though (like a journal). I'd gladly cede that level of control. I think the process as a whole benefits from it. And it IS a process, no matter what. We make some wrong calls on up/down as it is now. That's just natural. The question is what is best for the net result. Work smarter, not harder per Malleus.
Heck, it is leadership. I'm fine with a leader and a strong one. I would feel better with elected director/ates though. And clarifying the strange Raul situation (think how that looks to a "civilian" outsider new to the whole place.) Every other project does elections and they go fine. What is the concern? Not getting elected? It's all volunteer time anyways!
As far as the bottleneck of reviewers...duh. Go find more, develop more, teach more, grow more. That's the job of a strategic leader. Crying on FAC-T for reviews or just moving the same person's time around is fire-fighting. Grow the damned pie. Like there was a concern about image reviews. Seriously the image improvers (Graphics Lab) are some of the best, nicest people on Wiki. Little personal outreach and wham...get a few hooked into the program. (Heck, do it the right way and it even makes them feel proud and more connected to the best content writers...and for that matter the networking probably helps us start upping the actual QUALITY of the images. It's at least win/win/win.TCO (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll let you go and do your thing. Am logging off now. But a word of caution - as a researcher, which is what you're doing here, you cannot personalize anything. Be careful with that because it slants and will affect the outcome. And obviously the reception. But what's most important is that people will overlook the substance you want to present if it boils down to personalities. That's buying into the wiki culture of slamming others. Don't go there. Look at the facts only. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Sandy says she doesn't promote off of a vote, looks at the actual content...then complains about vapid supports influencing decisions. If you'd pay more attention, be more diligent and precise, your research might be worth something. I don't complain about supports influencing decisions-- I frequently note that premature supports increase the backlog, as FACs that garner premature support have to be carried until the issues are pointed out by subsequent reviewers, or one of the delegates is forced to recuse and do it themselves. They are not contrary claims-- it is by looking at content that a delegate can see the premature supports. Further, I'm here to "call bullshit" on your personalization of issues that influenced your analysis, since you know as well as anyone that I had to point out an inaccuracy in a physics FAC after you supported it. How quickly you forget. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
That was a nice find on the figure caption, Sandy. I just wish I had the fairness to give you an attagurl. Oh wait...I think I did!
But is a nit. Look at my overall review and say I did not engage with the content substantively. There was discussion of several aspects that lead to re-organization into Pu/U workstreams, clarification of percent yeild and percent enrichemnt, sections/paras added (security, nuclear medicine, naval reactors) and photos added etc. Hawkeye did the work and deserves the credit. But...I engaged with the content.
The metal was probably Al or Mg, but we don't know for sure. Just looking at the patent, written after the war, is actually not sufficient. The first refining runs were done with calcium (of course because fluorite is such a stable compound, it's what an inorganic chemist would just automatically try) and then they switched metals for the Ames Process. It is all connected.). The change to Al or Mg probably gives some better kinetics when you think of the actual lumps of stuff inside the pressure vessel and the formation of hard surfaces and the like. Anyhow. The original caption of the photo (xferre by ME from a different article, and I take responsibility) was driven by looking at an Ames poster which talks about the development of uranium refining and refers to calcium and then shows this picture. Personally, I would bet given scale and year this was Al or Mg. That said, I just finessed it by calling it a sacrifical metal and labeling the thing refining at Ames.
BTW, I also got a formal donation from Ames and a note from the director who appreciated the outreach and wanted to know when it ran on the Front Page so he could say good things about interaction with Wiki. And they gave us larger meg size images than what we had snagged...and FP.
It's also argument by gotcha and not holistic and implies some insane idea that every article is perfect. Clue: they ain't perfect in the real world! We would never publish a single one if avoiding error was the only variable in the equation to maximize.
And it is kinda ad hom or something (never took logic.) IOW, I made a single mistake in a review, or you caught a single one, therefore global examination of how content is handled is now decided? I don't care about the jab...I can take a punch. But it's a logical fallacy... :)
Peace. I need to buckle down and write some prose now for the Signpost. Free press is good. Although I don't like having to write some essay now after already doing all that analysis and not having a group of FAers to do it for me. ;)
And I'm not here to take you on, to be validated by you, or pass through you like a gatekeeper. When you say something useful, I think that is great and additive. If you don't, I'm tranquil. You do a lot of work, sure, and make some good calls at time. But it's the larger group I'm talking to. I'm interested in general thinking across the community (even outside it). If they all pan it, so be it.
Now let me write in peace, to write. You can have your say across the whole project. And as much orange bars as you want...after Monday. TCO (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
As more aptly stated by Moni3, you've got such big ones they must be scraping the ground by now. You ask that you be left to write in peace after you've made if more difficult for others to do just that (eg Truthkeeper88), made faulty statements about Ucucha's FAs, made a cowardly faulty analysis of an FA of an absent editor (Iridescent), abused of RTV (an abuse that wasn't allowed for even Rlevse I'll note), and just to put the icing on the cake, responded to canvassing to pass a DYK? Chutzpah for sure-- or just an oversized ego. That was a nice find on the figure caption, Sandy. But is a nit. Bait and switch much? Your original charge was that your version of my claims were contradictory and that I don't review content-- address that. It's in the nits that you find the evidence that I do review (um, even image captions) and did note faulty content even after a support by you, which by the way, you never did fix. You don't seem to know what a blast furnace is. Which brings us to a good point you raised: perhaps there are too many dilettantes writing in here, and perhaps we should recruit more "experts" as you say-- could you identify some who know how to conduct valid "studies" using scientific methods? I'm not much concerned with why you're here other than what you've already made obvious, but that you don't again abuse of RTV to troll the FAC page and insult worthy writers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not about you, Sandy. It's about the overall process. You are a strong reviewer and look at the articles more closely than other delegates and than many reviewers. The issue is that overall reviews by the set of reviewers are light (on content). That article would be heavily reviewed for content (and not just by me, but by several) regardless of the Ames photos. We have some that get passed without even a global claim "I checked content". Do you want to put money that if I get several subject matter experts or magazine editors to look at the issue of "level of content review" at FAC that they don't have some similar concerns?TCO (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Here's at a review from a subject matter expert. [2]. But you won't find much in FAC, most of the reviewing happened on the talk page while the page was being written. That happens frequently. Only 11 page view per day though - but it's a pretty page. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I love that. Am very proud of you or whoever did that. It's not even just about the review, but is great press for Wiki and might draw someone into the web.TCO (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I've never reviewed one to the old criteria. And I guess there are all kinds of new difficult stuff. Sounds really hard. Ah...fuck it...will be bold. OK.RetiredUser12459780 (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Where else do you get to read about wartime heroism by a kid of 10-15, fighting Nazis? Where else are the gossip been forced to be moved to the talkpage? :)
The article has been reviewed for content and form. A question of close paraphrasing has been raised by Demiurge1000, so I rewrote anything that I had not rewritten before in KW fashion. You can see the discussion at the DYK page. If you want the articles, I can send you the pdf files from the Milton Quarterly. They are only 2-3 pages each. 03:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I come from a time when DYK just had someone look to see that the hook was cited and there was one cite per para and it met the word count and wasn't totally messy looking. It looks a lot more intense now. You want it checked for copyvio or reviewed like a GA or what?RetiredUser12459780 (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi TCO!
You can recognize Demiurge1000 from my RfC and previous manifestations at RfAs/talk pages/AN/ANI, no doubt. He was lecturing us at Jimbo Wales's page last week about the importance of AGF and feminism ---or something---before I tuned him out.
The DYK standards have not changed. The article was first written using Professor George Bornstein's discussion of Patrides, which is available at the University of Michigan for free. There were horrific paraphrases like "CAP was in the army from 1952 to 1954" and "He served in the army between 1952 and 1954", which probably threatened the solvency of Professor Bornstein's intellectual-property portfolio. I rewrote anything that I hadn't written or extensively revised myself---so the article has the KW-stamp.
I would just stamp the article with approval "It's been rewritten, and I'm AGFing the off-line stuff, per WP:AGF" (and per KW and I having better things to do).
If you want the articles, let me know and I'll mail them. Professor Gordon Campbell gave the thumbs up to our CAP article weeks ago. I cannot explain why it has taken so long to get the DYK review done. Kiefer.Wolfowitz03:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
OK. Nice request. Will do.
That's some pretty obvious canvassing-- I've brought this to Nikkimaria's attention so she'll have another look to be sure issues were resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I've had a look, and it seems to be fixed (at least the sources I checked were)...but seriously, KW, whether it is or isn't your comment here does give the appearance of canvassing. You can't tell someone to "stamp the article with approval" and not be accused of impropriety, and sometimes the appearance of impropriety is as important as impropriety itself. Please be more careful in future. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria and Sandygeorgia!
I appreciate your formal notification, which should be given to all editors, regardless of their history with DYK or quality writing/reviewing. Nonetheless
I used over the top phrasing to highlight the appearance of canvassing when I asked TCO to look at it.
I trusted that TCO's reputation and record of care in reviewing suffice to allay suspicions that I had squirreled him away in my re-education camp in recent months and that I was now activating my Manchurian DYK reviewer.
I answered directly when TCO asked me what to do. I said the question had been raised about Borenstein and paraphrasing, and that my rewriting should have eliminated any appearance of paraphrasing (moduloPierre Menard, Author of the Quixote). If he wanted to check the other references, I should have been happy to mail them to him (or another reviewer).
However, it does not surprise me that TCO appraised the article at near GA status, since I recently raised it to B status (with no complaints). He himself wondered whether this was supposed to be a GA review, now at DYK! That's why I suggested, publicly with over the top language, that he could easily look at the public sources and could AGF the rest---AGF being a policy that Demiurge1000 often cites and practices when it does not interfere with his favorite hobbies.
I have been surprised by the long delay in reviewing an easy DYK, of interest to many projects (duly notified), as has one DYK regular who gave me an undeserved apology---a striking reversal of the usual behavior of blaming "the community" for one's faults, there! I regard the latest delay in the article as ridiculous (and again note that role of Demiurge1000 in my RfC, and his attempt to parody my presentation of a close paraphrase of an unreliable "history").
I read the sources and read the article and looked for plagiarism or close paraphrase or whatever we call it as that seemed like the major concern from previous reviews on the DYK page and other than that, it looked like a pretty decent new article.
Looked fine to me although I am not a superstar in finding tiny phrase copies and lack a tool. But pretty decent at scanning and having warning bells go off when we are cribbing. I had some other comments on the thing (see article talk page). Hope they are helpful as you develop it.
Don't need to worry about me meatpuppeting. Yeah, I have a warm spot for Kiefer. But I'm honorable. Not into the scarlet C (for canvass) or the Kabuki theater we do with asking for reviews or views or whatever in exactly the right words. I know if I am just biasing a vote or am trying to look at a piece fairly. Plus KW is just being acerbic.
Nuff said...that is how I roll.
Heck...I figured it would give something to gotcha me for if a phrase turned up! (But I really did read the three sources and the article...and make an honest review...what is on the DYK and article talk is what I'm capable of.)
To both of you-- here's how it's done: "I was asked by the nominator to look at this ... " Easy enough. Further, Kiefer, I don't share your confidence in TCO's care in reviewing anything; I find the evidence shows him to be often impulsive and drawn to premature conclusions based on faulty analyses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Sandy, that diff wasn't warranted; it just shows that TCO may have made an error, an irrelevant point, since nobody has claimed that TCO is perfect. On the contrary, TCO has humbly stated his comfort Indeed, everybody makes mistakes, and so your citation and characterization was mean in appearance.
TCO is the rare editor with real intellectual curiosity, who tries to understand new things, and his reviewing of my article on a mathematical topic, Shapley-Folkman lemma, shows an intelligent mind wanting to understand the truth, which is the principle qualification for good contributions to an encyclopedia.
Everyone's got an opinion, you know what that's like, and if they happen to line up with the editorial position taken by The Signpost, you can even get an audience for faulty analyses ala if you put in fancy colors and pie charts, you can pretend that your "stats" show something. Sorry, I don't share your views on TCO since he's prone to jump to conclusions on faulty bases. But I will say, while I find your quirky approach to the craziness that is Wikipedia sometimes endearing, I find TCO to be a rather tedious bore, since he's mostly impressed by ... himself. And he puts up strawmen and is evasive ... still hasn't addressed his false claim that I'm "contradictory". FWIW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Sandy,
I prescribe you two Song of Myselfs and a time-out from TCO is you are upset with "contradictory"! ;)
"Do I contradict myself?/ Very well then I contradict myself,/ I am large, I contain multitudes."
If you're going to start with that "peace" claptrap, too, I'll retract. It's kinda disgusting that TCO launched attacks on the work of worthy writers, found to mostly false, without having previously discussed them on article talk so the authors would have the courtesy of advance notice before the "grenades" were lobbed, and then notifies them signing off with "peace". Saying it doesn't make it so. That technique is ... part of the tedious bore. Sorry to see you go there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Peace is not a claptrap. Central America is better now that there are not large gangs of armed men killing civilians and sometimes each another.
Wikipedia sometimes becomes a soul-deadening battleground, and it is not worth it. If you want to discuss the problems further with TCO, then please wait a few days or a week. Justice, Kiefer.Wolfowitz19:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Did you mean to say that Central America is better now that the large groups of armed men killing civilians and sometimes each other migrated north? They didn't stop killing-- killers don't change. Being abusive and then signing "peace" is just ... more abusive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
We disagree about human rights issues regarding Central America, about which I trust the assessments of progress of Oscar Arias and WOLA, etc. more than your doomful determinism.
I was feeling like the soon-to-be neurotic kid in dysfunctional family.
I had no idea why SandyGeorgia was so upset with you, TCO.
I just read your essay. Let me say that I'll proof-read your next presentations, gratis, and help you avoid singling out editors, which is almost always a bad idea. In this case, I cringed when I read the names of selected "problem editors". (I'm glad you patted Jakob on the back, because he showed me how to write GA-level articles.)
You can understand how SG and others at FA Asgard must feel after your presentation. All writers hate criticism. I wish you had tried to put yourself in their shoes more. What's done is done. I trust that people shall soon think of your kindnesses, over many years. I certainly think of you as a kind person, and I don't judge you as any worse than myself. I've had bad days a plenty.
That said, I agree with most of your analysis, but I think you put too much faith in institutional formalities and too much importance on the mean, which is a dangerous summary statistic for long-tailed distributions, especially the power laws you mentioned. :)
What is important is that we nurture writers and editors, whomever they are and whatever their interests. There are other encyclopedias and surveys, like the Encyclopedia of Statistics or the New Palgrave or the Russian Encyclopedia of Mathematics, so the world can survive without an FA article on convex sets. I think it's fine that we offer good references in articles on important subjects, and that we develop articles that are ignored by other sources.
We need leadership, like you and Geometry guy and Jakob and Charles Matthew and MF, etc., all of whom have helped teach me how to write. We need to to find and develop editors. Everything else is secondary. I liked some of your suggestions about finding more quality writers, and I hope that others will re-read your paper and see the wealth of ideas and good suggestions.
On the other hand, would we really want our friends or family to edit here?
In my experience, whenever I stray from mathematical topics, I run into POV pushers and weirdos that make editing a pain. I've given up on many of the articles that I used to protect, before my RfC. (Partly because none of the statisticians bothered to help at my RfC.) Editing on vital topics---or even important topics, like the guys who brought us the 40 hour workweek and the March on Washington with King's "I have a Dream" speech---usually means running into kids who at best have read a few books on the topic, and most of those books were written by hacks! When we try to defend our articles or to fix despicable articles, too many administrators come to the aid of the incompetents or POV pushers. It is not worth the trouble to write on important topics outside of mathematics. I am happy to tell the story of Tom Kahn but I wouldn't dare bother with a more important, controversial article.
I think it was Sandy who mentioned to me that editors who stay usually write in a relatively quiet corner. We won't be able to change WP for the better until we have enough happy editors in their corners that we can change policies to deal with administrators who value "civility" above truth and honesty.
I note the clarification and appreciate your point. Would still say that it is a contradiction. If it's a useless support in terms of final promotion, then why let it affect your decision to kick something off the queue? This is getting tedious though. I'm usually willing to engage point for point to an extent that it is boring for people. I've seen you go pretty radio silent yourself, when corrected.TCO (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I go "radio silent" when my feedback would affect an ongoing FAC. Try exercising some responsibility yourself sometime-- you might find it informative to think about FAC from the vantage point of someone else's shoes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Outstanding. Some serious credit must go to the coach. It can't all be the feeder system. And I don't see how it would be demographics. As with teaching, there are definitely some who are special.TCO (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Poorly executed
Your report was poorly executed and damaging to Wikipedia. Behind usernames there are individual human beings but your report treats them like commodities. Calling Feature Article writers "Star collectors" is pejorative in that implies vanity as motivation. Can you tell me who the authors of Apache are? That's a far more important open source project than Wikipedia and its creators are essentially anonymous. Pitting editors in a "contest" that neither has entered and then declaring a winner??
The primary asset of Wikipedia is editors -- people -- which are mostly entirely volunteers. Offending "non vital" featured article writers is not very likely to make them go edit the so-called vital articles, it's more likely to make them less motivated to edit.
It's likely -- probable even -- that you have a valid point that the incentive structure of Wikipedia could be improved. (It's ironic that the rhetoric of the report shows such little understanding of motivation.) With care, it could have easily been written to make the same point without naming names and pissing people off. Comment on content, not on contributors is Wikipedia 101. Gerardw (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
i agree with the broad strokes, that we need to be more outer directed rather than inner directed; more effort to where the eyeballs are. not sure i buy the Growth-share matrix bcg speak. i agree with gerard that you could have written in a more positive way, rather than negative. i wouldn't push the skinner stuff too far (i.e. eye candy causes effort). the strategic plan critique is little commented on, but just as negative. i would like to see an action plan, for the foundation about quality and vital quality improvement. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭15:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Re: Improving Wikipedia's important articles
Thank you for this report. Unfortunately, I must criticize it for failing to address the fundamental problem at hand, namely the complete and total failure of administrators to adequately patrol and watch our vital articles. The reason good and featured article writers focus on obscure content is because vital articles are, for the most part, watched and edited by users who do not share the goals of article improvement, and who make collaboration difficult, if not impossible. As a result, editors wishing to actually write and improve articles must move on to unwatched and undiscovered topics. This has been known for many years now, so I was quite surprised to see you ignore the problem in your report. When I first arrived here in 2004, I was told by regulars and admins alike that they had completely given up on working on many of our vital articles, and they spent their time on quiet articles in order to get work done. Otherwise, they would be bogged down into unproductive talk discussions by editors who didn't care about the article improvement process. It is my opinion that editors have all but abandoned and fled the vital articles because administrators have failed to patrol and control the problem of uncollaborative and disruptive editors who are here only to argue and not to research, write, and improve the encyclopedia. In fact, most administrators will admit that they avoid content disputes and controversial topics, which only makes the problem worse and leads to more editors leaving those topics behind. If you want to improve vital articles, you will need to address the inability of administrators to deal with highly watched and important articles that attract editors who have no interest in improving the topic. Otherwise, editors will continue to work on quiet and obscure pages until administrators actually start doing their job. Since that isn't going to happen, an effort needs to be made to delegate administrative powers to WikiProjects so that people involved in the daily maintenance of related articles can exert administrative oversight for the sole purpose of enabling and empowering editors to improve the articles. When you think about this, it makes the most sense, because it is the most active project users who will be able to improve the vital articles and setup collaboration with associated projects. For example, we might have a lead coordinator on the films project who is not an administrator but might need administrative tools to help out the active editors. To do this, administrative rights would be given to that lead coordinator for permission on all film-related articles. Delegating rights and permissions by topic would allow users who work in vital areas to speed the article development and improvement process along. Viriditas (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I've heard it before, but you state it exceptionally well. Perhaps a revitalized VA project could benefit from a couple admins sort of how FA has admins (mostly). I do think that even in an adverse editing environment that enhanced social rewards (they are equal now) would help for more important topics. Also, that the star (even the plus sign) does help give a tiny bit of moral authority in reverting bad edits. But yeah...I agree. There is more than one lever to push. Probably pushing any of them would help. Improvement should be the objective.TCO (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
the more I think about it, the more I like this. We will have some abuse, sure. But the problem of degredation and warring is probably much worse. We need to be efficient and pick the lesser evil. Intuitively, I think gatekeepers makes sense (or higher protections). Done correctly it can eliminate stress both for article writers (some dissuaded from startin now) as well as newbies who are given a false message that they can improve horse...and then they go do something non-vandalistic but destructive (adding an external link to a hobby site, putting some info in the lead that is already in the body, etc.)...and then get reverted. It is a big hurdle for the community though. If there was a way to do it gradually...hmmm...TCO (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Very well said. This analysis is very close to SandyGeorgia's also. If I had read this first, then I would have shortened my note above. Kiefer.Wolfowitz08:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
What I think you will find is considerable opposition to handing out bits without a community vote. Go on, post at WT:RFA and see what happens. Such a side issue could provide another huge distraction. Think about it. The only time I remember handing out bits to non-admins getting more than minimal support is if they were elected to ArbCom, which has not yet happened, though non-arbs have run. Giano ran two years ago, I believe, although I do not follow Wiki Politics as closely as I should for my own self-protection.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Wehwalt, I can't speak for others, but what I'm saying is that for the moment, we keep the universal admin permissions process but that we experiment with a streamlined, topic-area, article level rights catered to lead coordinators on WikiProjects or similar users. Part of the problem here is that the site focuses on giving users rights based on the older sysop approach to maintenance when what we really need is a topic based approach. There are hundreds of editors who stay away from vital articles because those pages are infested with trolls and POV pushers who have expressly said that the reason they disrupt Wikipedia is because they see this place as an amateur site and they feel that "anything goes". The lack of professionalism, leadership, and most of all vision, contribute to this perspective. Since admins won't do their jobs in order to benefit contributors, and act much like police officers who are mostly forbidden from preventing crime, and won't do anything until after a crime occurs, then we need to delegate this responsibility to people who will do something, and who will protect the content contributors more than the trolls and vandals. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
from 
. Helder 01:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Helder 03:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
TCO (reviews needed) 16:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Helder 17:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-2.jpg){kind=link}
