Please add new messages to the bottom of the page. I will try to respond within a few days.
Happy New Year
|Happy New Year !!!|
|Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS|
I have some problems with User: Rhode_Island_Red concerning art historical subjects. He admits that he has no knowledge of art historical matters, but constantly places superfluous tags on article pages I have created, questioning the reliability of my sources. See, for instance, , , , ). See also  and . User Dr. Blofeld recommended asking you what to do. The problem is that the activities of this user haven't changed much for years. Just some examples: Talk:HA_Schult/Archives/2012/August, Talk:HA_Schult/Archives/2012/September, Talk:HA_Schult/Archives/2013/April, and Talk:Gotthard_Graubner. Do you have an idea how to handle this case? Wikiwiserick (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
At times like this a minkey with a shotgun would be most useful...♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Some of the tags are daft. I suppose it is valid to object to unsourced material. I would not be nearly as picky about the nature of the sources used unless they are used to support questionable material. I have found blog-type essays that are very good, and scholarly articles with blatant errors. I see he has been reported at ANI a few times: . He seems to like edit wars. It is hard to advise what to do with wikilawyers who like picking fights. They are disruptive in my view, but they usually stay within the rules. The less opportunities you provide the less he will be able to bother you. Strong sourcing is always good. This is not very helpful... Aymatth2 (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Too bad obnoxious stuffy trolls like Kww had to turn up at your proposal.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- I really don't know. It is a private gallery, holds exhibitions, sells stuff. Various artists include an exhibition at the gallery in their list of exhibitions. Sometimes an exhibition gets press coverage. I don't see much about the gallery itself, though. A search on Ζουμπουλάκης Γκαλερί may give more. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Jeanne Schmahl
|On 7 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jeanne Schmahl, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Jeanne Schmahl helped married French women gain the right to spend what they earn? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jeanne Schmahl. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.|
You do a lot of work on French articles, any chance of putting your name down for Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/French and listing some missing articles from other wikipedias? You might find it useful. List missing articles on buildings here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the laugh!
A barnstar for you!
|The Original Barnstar|
|For challenging the community to review how they manage new articles at WP:VPR#Discouraging biting the newbies  and spurring significant amounts of discussion, I award you this barnstar. VQuakr (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)|
Ah. I see you already have one of these. Well, then let me be second, rather than third...
|The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar|
|For a practical approach to making Wikipedia a more welcoming place. --GRuban (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)|
Collaboration and brainstorming
Couple of questions for you. First off, would it be all right with you if I edited User:Aymatth2/April 2015 CSD samples and similar future CSD studies in your user space? I would like to add analysis on nomination quality and summary info regarding failure (bad nomination) percentages.
Second, I would like to bounce around ideas you and I might have for addressing the problem, that might not be developed enough for village pump yet. I think the solution to the CSD portion of the problem you have highlighted lies, at least partly, in patroller coaching. Improving patroller accountability was the main reason I created WP:NPPN last year, and I would love to see it get more use. Do you have any ideas for popularizing it? How about ideas for getting away from the "cop" mentality and/or perception of NPP you alluded to at the pump? VQuakr (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please feel free to edit User:Aymatth2/April 2015 CSD samples. I think it could use a fair amount of analysis. One issue I am not sure how to address is "velocity". The obviously terrible articles get wiped out fast, and the less obvious ones linger, so any sample has a disproportionate number of borderline cases. Perhaps that does not matter if the issue is treatment of borderline cases. Some of the "blues" look odd to me. Philanthropy Network Service looks like an invented term by an internet start-up, but Vartika Singh (which I expanded a bit) is entirely valid. I had no idea there was this huge Indian beauty contest category, but there it is. The Voice of Peace (marathon) looks like bad faith on one side or the other, maybe both.
- I am skeptical about education efforts, although an individualized reach-out might work. There are some very aggressive and immature editors who cannot grasp that their key audience is potential new editors who are much more rational and knowledgeable than they are. They may only respond to threats of being cut off. I am leaving for Costa Rica tomorrow to visit my daughter for a couple of weeks. I am taking my laptop, but based on past experience may find walking on the beach a serious distraction from Wikipedia. I may try to do a summary of the rambling discussion. Let's let the echoes of that fade out and then maybe talk about what proposals could fly. Perhaps in a month or so? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Enjoy your time away; nearly everything is more important than editing here. I just got back from a quite welcome half week in Vegas.
- Competence is required for everything on Wiki, including NPP. I have encountered patrollers who responded well to coaching, and usually the ones who are slow to learn stop voluntarily before a ban is necessary. A ban is a last resort and relatively rare. Patrollers are individuals, and I do not think viewing the problem from an us/them mentality is likely to be successful.
Currently, CSD criterion A7 applies to, an article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This means that an article about a notable subject may be speedily deleted under this criteria, if no version article explains why the subject is significant. If the subject is indeed notable, this is both wasteful and discouraging to new editors. Possible modifications to this policy could include:
- Excepting new articles from this criterion to allow time for development (similar to what is done for A1 and A3).
- Adding a requirement for a good-faith search for sources.
- Automatically moving the article to Draft: space instead of deleting.
If nobody creates this by the time you return any chance of creating an article? Very important but missing. The coverage on this in Postwar Britain is poor. There also some more info in the Atlee article but nothing solid.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)